Datasets:

bot-yaya

/

new_prompt_gpt_joined_en_paragraph

like 0

453500

General Assembly Distr.: Limited 28 November 2001 Original: English 01-66657 (E) 291101 *0166657* Fifty-sixth session Third Committee Agenda item 119 (b) Human rights questions: human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms South Africa:* draft resolution The right to development The General Assembly, Guided by the Charter of the United Nations, expressing, in particular, the determination to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom as well as to employ international mechanisms for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, Recalling that the Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 41/128 of 4 December 1986, confirmed that the right to development is an inalienable human right and that equality of opportunity for development is a prerogative both of nations and of individuals, who make up nations, Recalling also that the outcome of the World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,1 reaffirmed the right to development as a universal and inalienable right and an integral part of all fundamental human rights, Recalling further the outcomes of the World Summit for Social Development, held at Copenhagen from 6 to 12 March 1995,2 and the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly, entitled “World Summit for Social Development and beyond: achieving social development for all in a globalizing world”,3 held at Geneva from 26 June to 1 July 2001, especially as they relate to the realization of the right to development, Recalling its resolution 55/279 of 12 July 2001, in which it endorsed the Brussels Declaration4 and Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2001-2010,5 adopted by the Third United Nations Conference on Least Developed Countries, held in Brussels from 14 to 20 May 2001, and, in this regard, emphasizing the importance of implementation and follow-up to the Brussels commitments, Welcoming the report of the Secretary-General,6 in preparation for the International Conference on Financing for Development to be held in Monterrey, Mexico, from 18 to 22 March 2002, and expressing its hope that the Conference will set a new partnership for financing sustainable development and for implementation of the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration7 and other internationally agreed development targets, Taking note of the three studies prepared by the independent expert on the right to development and his proposed possible approaches to the operationalization of the right to development, Taking note also of the report of the Open-Ended Working Group on the Right to Development established to monitor and review progress made in the promotion and implementation of the right to development8 and of the Chairperson’s conclusions on the issue, as well as the comments submitted thereon, Welcoming the commitment made by the heads of State and Government in the United Nations Millennium Declaration to make the right to development a reality for everyone and their resolve to create an environment, at the national and global levels alike, which is conducive to development and to the elimination of poverty, and their commitment to spare no effort to promote good governance and democracy and to strengthen the rule of law as well as respect for all universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, Underlining that meeting the objectives of good governance also depends on good governance at the international level and on transparency in the financial, monetary and trading systems and an open, equitable, rules-based, predictable and non-discriminatory multilateral trading and financial system, Underlining also the fact that the realization of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level, Underlining further the important role of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in the promotion and protection of the right to development, Recalling the need for coordination and cooperation throughout the United Nations system for a more effective promotion and realization of the right to development, Noting the outcome of the South Summit of the Group of Seventy-seven, held in Havana from 10 to 14 April 2000, relating to the realization of the right to development,9 1. Welcomes the holding of two sessions of the Working Group on the Right to Development from 18 to 22 September 2000 and from 29 January to 2 February 2001, which focused on certain issues, as reflected in the report of the Open-Ended Working Group on the Right to Development,8 and emphasizes the need to continue deliberations on the right to development in all its aspects, inter alia, on the basis of the report of the Working Group and the Chairperson’s conclusions, as well as comments submitted thereon; 2. Emphasizes that, on the basis of the text of the Declaration on the Right to Development, several resolutions and declarations adopted by consensus at subsequent international conferences and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,1 it should now be possible to reach consensus on the full implementation of the right to development; 3. Expresses its appreciation for the reports of the independent expert on the right to development and his additional work on and clarifications of the “development compact” proposal, which contributed to a better understanding of this proposal, while recognizing that further clarification is still needed; 4. Recognizes that any development compact would be of a voluntary nature for all parties involved and that its content would be defined on a case-by-case basis and be adapted to the priorities and realities of any country willing to conclude such a compact, which would need the adherence and the support of all international actors involved in its implementation; 5. Notes the request by the Commission on Human Rights for the independent expert to clarify further the proposed development compact, taking into consideration views expressed during the two sessions of the Working Group and in broad consultation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and United Nations funds and programmes, as well as the specialized agencies, relevant international and regional organizations, non-governmental organizations and, in particular, those actors and States interested in developing pilot projects in this regard, keeping in mind: (a) The ongoing bilateral, regional and multilateral development cooperation programmes; (b) The formulation of an operational model for a development compact; (c) The views of concerned international organizations and agencies and relevant regional institutions and actors; (d) The need to ensure the added value of a development compact to and complementarity with the relevant existing mechanisms; (e) The need to address and remedy the national and international dimensions of corruption; (f) The need for country-specific studies both from a national and an international perspective; 6. Reaffirms that States have the primary responsibility for the creation of national and international conditions favourable to the realization of the right to development and that they are committed to cooperating with each other to that end; 7. Also reaffirms that the realization of the right to development is essential to the implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, which regards all human rights as universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and which also places the human person at the centre of development and recognizes that while development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights; 8. Recognizes that, in order to realize the right to development, national action and international cooperation must reinforce each other in a manner that goes beyond the measures for realizing each individual right, and also recognizes that international cooperation for the realization of the right to development should be conducted in a spirit of a partnership, in full respect of all human rights, which are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated; 9. Also recognizes that for many developing countries, the realization of the rights to, inter alia, food, health and education may be important development entry points to the realization of the right to development and that, in this context, the independent expert’s concept of a development compact intends to give expression to some basic tenets of the interdependence of all human rights and national ownership of development strategies and development programmes, as well as the importance of international cooperation; 10. Takes note of the ongoing discussion on the question of a suitable permanent follow-up mechanism and the different views expressed thereon in the Open-Ended Working Group on the Right to Development, and recognizes the need for a discussion on this issue; 11. Stresses the necessity of establishing, at the national level, an enabling legal, political, economic and social environment for the realization of the right to development, and emphasizes the importance of democratic, participatory, transparent and accountable governance, as well as the need for efficient national mechanisms, such as national human rights commissions, to ensure respect for civil, economic, cultural, political and social rights, without any distinction; 12. Also stresses the need to prevent, address and take effective action against corruption, at both the national and international levels, including by establishing a firm legal structure for eradicating corruption, and urges States to take all necessary measures to that end; 13. Recognizes the importance of the role of the State, civil society, free and independent media, national institutions, the private sector and other relevant institutions in the realization of the right to development, and also recognizes a need to continue discussion on this subject; 14. Affirms the role of women in the process of realization of the right to development, including their role as active actors in and beneficiaries of development, and that further actions in this context are needed to ensure the participation of women on equal terms with men in all fields in the realization of the right to development; 15. Also affirms the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women as effective means to combat poverty, hunger and disease and to stimulate sustainable development, as well as the importance of equal rights and opportunities for women and men, including property rights for women and their access to bank loans, mortgages and other forms of financial credit, taking into account the best practices of microcredit in different parts of the world; 16. Underlines that in the process of the realization of the right to development, special attention should be given to persons belonging to minorities, whether national, ethnic, religious or linguistic, as well as to persons belonging to vulnerable groups, such as elderly people, indigenous people, persons facing discrimination on multiple grounds, Roma, migrants, persons with disabilities, children and persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, and that such attention should have a gender perspective; 17. Affirms in this context that attention should also be given to the right to development of children, with special attention to the rights of the girl child; 18. Acknowledges the need to continue discussion on the role of civil society in the realization of the right to development and the role of national institutions in this respect; 19. Reaffirms the need for States to cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development, recognizes the importance of the international community in promoting effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development, and also recognizes that lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level; 20. Reiterates that the gap between developed and developing countries remains unacceptably wide, that developing countries continue to face difficulties in participating in the globalization process, and that many risk being marginalized and effectively excluded from its benefits; 21. Recognizes, while bearing in mind the existing efforts in this respect, that it is necessary to enhance efforts to consider and evaluate the impact on the enjoyment of human rights of international economic and financial issues, such as: (a) International trade issues; (b) Access to technology; (c) Good governance and equity at the international level; (d) Debt burden; 22. Notes the request by the Commission on Human Rights for the independent expert to prepare, in consultation with all relevant United Nations agencies and the Bretton Woods institutions, a preliminary study on the impact of those issues on the enjoyment of human rights, starting by analysing the existing efforts and means of assessing and evaluating such an impact, for consideration by the Working Group at its future sessions; 23. Notes also the request by the Commission on Human Rights for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the specialized agencies, funds and programmes, the international financial institutions and other relevant actors to collaborate with the independent expert in the fulfilment of his mandate and encourages further cooperation; 24. Notes further the request by the Commission on Human Rights for the Working Group and the independent expert, to consider, as appropriate, the relevant economic and developmental outcomes of the international conferences, inter alia, the South Summit of the Group of Seventy-seven, held in Havana from 10 to 14 April 2000,9 and the follow-up thereto, in elaborating their recommendations for the implementation of the right to development; 25. Decides to continue consideration of the issue of the right to development, as a matter of priority, at its fifty-seventh session.

792816

United Nations A/CONF.192/PC/L.3 General Assembly Distr.: Limited 1 December 2000 Original: English 00-77708 (E) 141200 *0077708* Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects Second session 8-19 January 2001 Draft Objective of the Conference Working paper by the Chairman of the Preparatory Committee The Preparatory Committee recommends that the objective of the Conference should be to develop and strengthen international efforts to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects. To this end, the aims of the Conference should be: – To strengthen or develop norms at the global, regional and national levels that would reinforce and further coordinate efforts to prevent and combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects; – To develop agreed international measures to prevent and combat illicit arms trafficking in and manufacturing of small arms and light weapons and to reduce excessive and destabilizing accumulations and transfers of such weapons throughout the world; – To put particular emphasis on the regions of the world where conflicts come to an end and where serious problems with the proliferation of small arms and light weapons have to be dealt with urgently; – To mobilize the political will throughout the international community to prevent and combat illicit transfers in and manufacturing of small arms and light weapons in all their aspects, and raise awareness of the character and seriousness of the interrelated problems associated with the illicit trafficking in and manufacture of small arms and light weapons and the excessive and destabilizing accumulation and spread of these weapons; – To promote responsibility by States with a view to preventing the illicit export, import, transit and retransfer of small arms and light weapons.

600312

United Nations A/61/917 General Assembly Distr.: General 21 May 2007 Original: English 07-35147 (E) 230507 *0735147* Sixty-first session Agenda items 68 and 117 Report of the Human Rights Council Programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007 Reports of the Secretary-General on the revised estimates resulting from decision S-4/101 adopted by the Human Rights Council at its fourth special session in 2006 (A/61/530/Add.2) and on the revised estimates resulting from resolutions adopted by the Council at its fourth session in 2007 (A/61/530/Add.3) Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions 1. The Advisory Committee has considered the reports of the Secretary-General on the revised estimates resulting from decision S-4/101 adopted by the Human Rights Council at its fourth special session in 2006 (A/61/530/Add.2) and on the revised estimates resulting from resolutions adopted by the Council at its fourth session in 2007 (A/61/530/Add.3). 2. As noted in the report of the Secretary-General on the revised estimates resulting from decision S-4/101 adopted by the Human Rights Council at its fourth special session in 2006 (A/61/530/Add.2), the adoption of the decision gives rise to estimated requirements in the amount of $347,200 for the biennium 2006-2007 to implement the activities outlined in paragraph 5 of the report of the Secretary￾General. 3. The Advisory Committee notes from paragraph 7 of the report that revised programme budget implications were not presented prior to the introduction and adoption of the draft decision presented by the President of the Human Rights Council. Consequently, the Council was informed that the General Assembly would be informed of the estimated resources required to implement the decision (see A/HRC/S-4/5, para. 12). It is envisaged that the estimated expenditures will be accommodated from within existing resources under section 23, Human rights, of the programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007. 07-35147 4. The Advisory Committee recommends that the General Assembly take note of the above-mentioned report of the Secretary-General (A/61/530/Add.2). 5. As noted in the report of the Secretary-General on the revised estimates resulting from resolutions adopted by the Human Rights Council at its fourth session in 2007 (A/61/530/Add.3), the adoption of resolutions 4/4 and 4/8 gives rise to estimated requirements of $434,600. In accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the Council was provided with a statement of programme budget implications prior to the adoption of the resolutions. 6. A summary of the requirements is provided in the annex to the report of the Secretary-General. With regard to Council resolution 4/8, the Secretary-General intends to accommodate $360,300, to the extent possible, from within the resources already appropriated under the programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007. Any additional requirements would be reported in the context of the second performance report of the programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007. With regard to Council resolution 4/4, an amount of $74,300 is projected to be required for the biennium 2008-2009 and will be considered in accordance with established procedures under General Assembly resolutions 41/213 and 42/211. 7. The Advisory Committee recommends that the General Assembly take note of the fact that the implementation of Council resolution 4/8 would give rise to additional requirements in the amount of $360,300 under sections 2, 23 and 28E of the programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007, which would be accommodated, to the extent possible, within the existing appropriation, and that the Secretary-General intends to report in the context of the second performance report of the programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007 on any additional requirements (A/61/530/Add.3, sect. IV (a)). 8. The Advisory Committee recommends that the General Assembly take note of the fact that the implementation of Council resolution 4/4 would give rise to additional requirements in the amount of $74,300 under sections 2, 23 and 28E of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009, and that those requirements would be considered when the Assembly takes up the proposed 2008-2009 programme budget and the related contingency fund (A/61/530/Add.3, sect. IV (b)).

450842

United Nations A/56/337 General Assembly Distr.: General 6 September 2001 Original: English 01-53477 (E) 121001 *0153477* Fifty-sixth session Items 57 and 131 (e) of the provisional agenda* The situation in East Timor during its transition to independence Human rights questions: report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Situation of human rights in East Timor Note by the Secretary-General** The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the members of the General Assembly the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in East Timor. * A/56/150. ** In accordance with General Assembly resolution 55/222, part III, para. 10, this report is being submitted on 6 September 2001 so as to include as much updated information as possible. Interim report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situationof human rights in East Timor Contents Paragraphs Page I. Introduction .......................................................... 1–3 3 II. Activities of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights ............................................................... 4–11 3 A. Follow-up to the visit of the High Commissioner to East Timor ............ 4 3 B. Follow-up to the visit of the High Commissioner to Indonesia regarding matters pertaining to East Timor ..................................... 5 3 C. Technical cooperation between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor ........................................ 6–11 4 III. The human rights situation in East Timor and related activities................. 12–61 5 A. Status of investigations and prosecution of serious crimes committed in East Timor in 1999 .................................................... 13–18 5 B. Capacity-building ................................................. 19–38 6 C. The reception, truth and reconciliation process.......................... 39–43 9 D. The protection of ethnic and religious minorities and other vulnerable groups........................................................... 44–56 10 E. Political issues affecting human rights................................. 57–61 12 IV. Ongoing and future key areas of work to promote and protect human rights in East Timor 62–76 13 V. Recommendations ..................................................... 77–100 15 I. Introduction 1. At the fifty-seventh session of the Commission on Human Rights, the Chairperson of the Commission issued a statement on the situation of human rights in East Timor, in which the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights was requested to submit an interim report to the General Assembly at its fifty-sixth session and to report to the Commission at its fifty-eighth session. The statement of the Chairperson was endorsed by the Economic and Social Council at its substantive session of 2001. 2. The High Commissioner submitted a report to the Commission at its fifty-seventh session (E/CN.4/2001/37), in which she noted, inter alia, that a project of technical cooperation between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Human Rights Unit of the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET)1 was to be implemented during 2001. 3. The present report is submitted pursuant to the request contained in the Chairperson’s statement and provides information on developments since the issuance of the statement. II. Activities of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights A. Follow-up to the visit of the High Commissioner to East Timor 4. The High Commissioner visited East Timor in August 2000. In order to follow up on a number of concerns that arose during her visit, the High Commissioner appointed a personal consultant for East Timor, Shanthi Dairiam, Director of the Malaysia￾based International Women’s Rights Action Watch (Asia Pacific). The personal consultant visited East Timor from 29 October to 15 November 2000 and reported to the High Commissioner on, inter alia, appropriate action to be taken to encourage the voluntary return of refugees from West Timor to East Timor and modalities to assist in tracing persons missing since the violence of 1999. The High Commissioner has provided the present report to UNTAET and relevant United Nations agencies, funds and programmes with a view to assisting their work in East Timor. The High Commissioner has also provided the Government of Indonesia with the report. She has received positive feedback on the report from a number of United Nations agencies, funds and programmes. B. Follow-up to the visit of the High Commissioner to Indonesia regarding matters pertaining to East Timor 5. During the High Commissioner’s visit to Indonesia on 22 and 23 November 2000, the then Attorney-General, Marzuki Darusman, informed the High Commissioner that the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR) had adopted the Law on Human Rights Tribunals on 6 November 2000. Pursuant to that legislation, an ad hoc tribunal was to be set up to hear cases of East Timor-related violations of human rights in 1999. The Attorney-General also informed the High Commissioner that dossiers had been prepared on 14 persons suspected of committing serious crimes in the 1999 violence and requested the High Commissioner to provide technical assistance to support the investigation and prosecution of the human rights violations that had taken place at that time. It was intended that OHCHR would commence its provision of technical assistance in mid-2001 which would include training for judges, prosecutors and defence counsellors and ad hoc judges and ad hoc prosecutors of the ad hoc human rights court. The purpose of that cooperation was to train a cadre of judicial and legal professionals who would be able to act as a catalyst of change within the administration of justice system. At the time of writing, however, OHCHR had yet to commence implementation of the proposed cooperation activities pending revision of Presidential Decree Number 53 of 23 April 2001, which had established an ad hoc court to try the East Timorese cases, so as to incorporate a reference to cases that had taken place prior to the popular consultation held in East Timor on 30 August 1999. As currently drafted, the Presidential Decree provides only for prosecution of alleged violations that took place after the popular consultation. C. Technical cooperation between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor 6. In April 2001, an agreement concerning a technical cooperation project to strengthen national infrastructure for the promotion and protection of human rights in East Timor was signed by the High Commissioner and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for East Timor. That project, funded by the Government of Ireland, includes the following activities: (a) Human rights training for East Timorese and international Professional staff of the Human Rights Unit of UNTAET and East Timorese non￾governmental organizations; (b) Human rights training for the East Timorese Police Service and the United Nations Civilian Police component; (c) Human rights training for East Timorese judges, prosecutors and public defenders; (d) Promotion of human rights activities, to include funding for the purchase, translation and dissemination of international human rights educational and training materials; (e) Legal advice and assistance on particular issues, cases and draft legislation to ensure conformity with international human rights standards; (f) Assistance with the establishment of a commission on reception, truth and reconciliation; and (g) Assistance with promoting ratification of and compliance with the principal international human rights instruments. 7. In late May 2001, an OHCHR expert travelled to East Timor to provide human rights training on the methodology of monitoring, investigation and protection to East Timorese district human rights officer interns recruited by the Human Rights Unit. Topics included international human rights norms, identification of human rights violations, monitoring principles, methodological aspects of information￾gathering and verification, interviewing, reporting and witness protection. The topics were illustrated through practical exercises and case studies and involved two days’ fieldwork followed by a systematic review. The East Timorese district human rights officer interns participated actively in the training, showing a very keen interest in learning new skills or improving existing ones. The possibility of subsequent training once the participants had had sufficient opportunity to apply their skills and identify areas that required further improvement or development was considered desirable. OHCHR provided the Human Rights Unit with a set of training materials covering a wide range of subjects for further reference, training or follow-up use and these are to be translated into the Tetun language. 8. In early June 2001, OHCHR, the Human Rights Unit, the East Timorese Police Service and the Civilian Police organized two training courses on human rights in law enforcement, one for the East Timorese Police Service and the other for the Civilian Police. Three police training experts from India, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and OHCHR assisted at both workshops. Topics included non￾discrimination, women and the administration of justice, civil policing in the democratic order, human rights and police investigations, human rights during arrest and detention, use of force and firearms and how to incorporate human rights into a police training curriculum. Thirty-two officers from the East Timorese Police Service participated in the first training course, which lasted five days. Though this was their first exposure to human rights training, there was a very positive response to the training. Forty-four Civilian Police officers from more than a dozen countries participated in a four-day training course that followed the course for the East Timorese Police Service. For many of the international participants, this was also their first exposure to comprehensive human rights training for police and the international standards adopted by the United Nations concerning criminal justice. The response to the course was extremely positive and discussions were held with the United Nations Police Commissioner and the Human Rights Unit regarding concrete follow-up action. The Human Rights Unit has undertaken to produce pocket-sized cards for all police in East Timor, outlining arrest rights, which will be printed in four languages. 9. Ongoing activities connected with the project include the purchase, translation into Tetun and Bahasa Indonesia and dissemination of international educational and training materials on human rights, legal advice and assistance to ensure that draft legislation is in accordance with international human rights standards and technical assistance to the reception, truth and reconciliation process. 10. The two remaining activities, human rights training for East Timorese judges, prosecutors and public defenders and assistance in promoting ratification of and compliance with the principal international human rights instruments, are still to be scheduled for implementation during the course of 2001. 11. OHCHR continues to seek methods to improve its support to the Human Rights Unit, including dissemination of information on United Nations human rights machinery, comparative information on implementation of international human rights standards and the selection of candidates for posts within the Unit. On 3 July 2001, the Director of the Unit travelled to Geneva to discuss with OHCHR the ongoing and future key areas of work for a United Nations human rights presence in East Timor (see paras. 62-75). III. The human rights situation in East Timor and related activities 12. The information upon which this section is based has been provided by UNTAET. A. Status of investigations and prosecution of serious crimes committed in East Timor in 1999 13. It is estimated that the crimes arising from the 1999 violence in East Timor number in the thousands, with many alleged perpetrators remaining in refugee camps in West Timor. Some 400-500 files in connection with the 1999 violence currently remain open with the Serious Crimes Unit of the East Timorese Transitional Administration (ETTA).2 Many of those files concern several alleged offences. UNTAET considers that countless serious crimes remain unreported or need to be evaluated to determine if a file should be opened. 14. A lack of resources, both human and material, in the Serious Crimes Unit has continued to prevent investigations from being undertaken in connection with the overwhelming majority of crimes against humanity committed in 1999. At the time of writing, 26 indictments had been issued against 46 accused persons, with 20 being charged with crimes against humanity (including murder, deportation and rape). Eight trials for murder, attempted murder or manslaughter had been concluded, with seven convictions and one acquittal. Sentences have ranged from 7 to 13 years’ imprisonment. 15. The first trial for crimes against humanity, the Los Palos case, began on 3 July 2001. The indictment includes the forced deportation of the residents of the village of Leuro to West Timor on 8 September 1999, the murders of a group of clergy who had been distributing food and medicine on 25 September 1999 and a number of other individual murders. 16. The Human Rights Unit provides information on specific cases to both the Serious Crimes Unit and the Civilian Police to assist them in pursuing cases. However, that information concerns only individual cases and no record yet exists that can provide a general description of the events that took place in 1999, from the political climate before the popular consultation to an estimate of the number and types of crime that were committed. UNTAET and district human rights officers of the Human Rights Unit are therefore currently engaged in gathering such information, which the Unit will compile into a comprehensive record of events. It is intended that that record would be available for use by, inter alia, the Reception, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Serious Crimes Unit, the Civilian Police, the East Timorese Police Service and other researchers. 17. In Indonesia, on 23 April 2001, the President of the Republic of Indonesia signed a decree establishing an ad hoc tribunal to hear cases of human rights violations committed in East Timor. As noted in paragraph 5, however, the Decree establishing the court limited its temporal jurisdiction to those cases which occurred after the popular consultation on 30 August 1999. As a result, the court cannot hear cases of human rights violations that occurred prior to the vote. Those cases include the Liquisa Church killings of 6 April 1999, during which non-governmental organizations estimate that at least 57 people were killed, and the attack on the house of Manuel Carrascalao of 17 April 1999, in which at least 12 people are believed to have been killed. The Government of Indonesia has agreed to review the court’s jurisdiction, but as yet this has not been done and the ad hoc tribunal has not been established. Accordingly, this means that not one case that occurred during the 1999 violence, either before or after the vote, has been prosecuted. UNTAET has expressed its serious concern and disappointment at the restriction on jurisdiction. 18. UNTAET further reports that, in addition to failing to pursue vigorously its own prosecutions, the Government of Indonesia has not cooperated adequately with the prosecutions of the ETTA Serious Crimes Unit. On 9 April 2001, the Chief Prosecutor of the Unit forwarded four arrest warrants to the Attorney-General of Indonesia but as yet no response has been received. B. Capacity-building 1. Access to justice 19. Prior to the popular consultation, the judiciary was staffed almost exclusively by Indonesian civil servants. Only one East Timorese had ever served as a judge, and that only since 1998; one East Timorese had worked as a prosecutor and only a few of the East Timorese who had obtained law degrees had been permitted to practise law. Those professionals, together with a small number of international staff, now serve as judges, prosecutors and public defenders within the East Timorese judicial system. 20. Four district courts (Dili, Baucau, Oecussi and Suai) and two serious crimes panels have been established to try the serious crimes3 of 1999. However, only one serious crimes panel is actually functioning. This is due to the requirement that an East Timorese judge sit on each panel and as yet only one East Timorese judge has been assigned to do so. The lack of East Timorese judicial and legal officials4 has produced a situation where the Dili District Court is the only fully functioning court.5 This dire shortage of qualified judicial and legal personnel has extremely serious consequences. For example, UNTAET reports that at the end of January 2001 approximately 103 serious crime detainees were being held unlawfully because their detention orders had expired owing, inter alia, to lack of access to legal counsel. The Serious Crimes Unit has made significant efforts to address the issue, however, and at present, there are no serious crime detainees being held on expired detention orders. Concerns remain, however, over the functioning of the ordinary courts. In that respect, UNTAET has also reported that access to legal counsel is limited and suspects are often held for weeks or months before seeing a public defender. In fact, 74 detainees charged with “ordinary” crimes are currently being held on expired detention orders. Since 12 public defenders cannot service four courts in East Timor,6 there are instances where, owing to sudden increased demands on the judicial system, persons taken into custody may be held for short periods of time after their detention warrants have expired before they are brought before the courts. 21. Concerns also remain as to the actual competence of those few personnel who are in service. Though the Department of Justice has put in place a framework for ongoing training for judges, prosecutors, public defenders and court registry staff and the International Development Institute is offering a week of training for every month of service in criminal, civil and procedural matters, some judges have complained that appropriate training has not always been provided. The international judicial mentoring system has also not been as effective as hoped. The situation is compounded by the difficulty for members of the judiciary to devote time to training, given their demanding professional schedules. 22. In other cases, and because, for instance, of the pressure to release detainees whose warrants have expired, judges have released suspects charged pursuant to allegations of serious crimes, sometimes unconditionally or on inappropriate conditions. In two instances, the releases came unexpectedly and the decision to release the suspect seemed, on the face of the evidence available, questionable. UNTAET had to act quickly and gathered the receiving community together to try and contain any possible violent reaction to the release of the alleged murderers. 23. While it is clear that the primary issue with respect to providing access to justice in East Timor is the lack of trained personnel and resources, there are other concerns, the origins of which stem from 25 years of Indonesian occupation and a discredited judiciary that did little to protect the rights of East Timorese. The population is understandably suspicious of both the police and the judiciary. As a result, East Timorese continue to resort to traditional dispute resolution mechanisms involving different approaches depending on the community and its leaders. In some cases, serious crimes are dealt with through that mechanism, often leaving the victim without either any real access to justice or appropriate remedy or, worse still, resulting in other human rights abuses. The burden resulting from such practices falls disproportionately on the shoulders of the weakest members of society, in particular women (see para. 46). 24. In addition, it is reported that East Timorese judges and prosecutors are coming under increasing political pressure and that there have been cases of judges and prosecutors being subjected to threats and intimidation both in the courts and in their homes. For instance, the arrests that followed the violence between rival groups and opposing villages in the districts of Viqueque and Baucau in April 2001 resulted in serious intimidation and threats from villagers to the judges who heard the subsequent trials. In an attempt to assist in resolving the problem, therefore, an experienced international judge was recently deployed to Baucau on a permanent basis to help the less experienced East Timorese judges to deal with such threats and intimidation. UNTAET is working to ensure that security is provided to judges and prosecutors and that arrests are made in such cases, and the Civilian Police now maintain a permanent presence in the court during working hours 25. Some of the pressures on judges are not so blatant. UNTAET reports that members of the community who enjoy a certain standing, such as priests, teachers, former members of the Armed Forces for National Liberation of East Timor (FALINTIL) or of the National Council of East Timorese Resistance (CNRT) are, in some cases, not vigorously prosecuted for criminal acts and it is thought that this may be due to a fear of repercussions on the part of the judges. To add to the pressure, a district court judge earns the equivalent of $361 per month compared with a salary of $2,000 per month authorized for Cabinet members in June 2000 when ETTA was formed. The low salaries of East Timorese judges may leave them vulnerable to external pressure and work against security of tenure. 26. The Human Rights Unit works with the ETTA Department of Justice to meet the enormous challenges of creating and developing an independent functioning judiciary from the ground up. As a result of its role in monitoring the progress of the courts, the Human Rights Unit provides information on crucial issues that need to be addressed. In addition, the Unit has provided advice on the recruitment of public defenders and highlighted the need for a secure and safe environment in court. Over the coming months, the Unit will also be working to enhance East Timorese confidence in the judiciary, first, by providing information to communities on the functioning of the judiciary and their rights on arrest. It will then, in cooperation with OHCHR, provide human rights training to the judiciary, prosecutors and public defenders on issues shown to be relevant by the Unit’s monitoring process. 2. The legislative framework 27. The Human Rights Unit is a member of the Legislation Committee of the East Timorese Cabinet (composed of East Timorese and international representatives), which advises the Cabinet on the drafting of legislation. The Human Rights Unit reviews proposed legislation to try and ensure that legislation adopted is in accordance with international human rights standards. In recent months, the Unit has made major contributions to a wide variety of proposed legislation, including regulations on the reception, truth and reconciliation commission, the constitutional commission, prison and police services, the defence force, legal aid, political party registration, firearms and weapons, traffic regulations, travel documents, four labour regulations, the ombudsman office, administrative evictions, public demonstrations and the judicial and prosecutorial codes of conduct. 3. Elections and the constitutional process 28. Elections for the Constituent Assembly have been scheduled for 30 August 2001. The Assembly has a recommended mandate of 90 days after the swearing in of its members to draft and adopt a constitution. The mandate of 90 days is not an absolute requirement, however, as the Assembly could decide to extend it. 29. A short-term consultation process has been established to ascertain the wishes of the East Timorese in relation to the constitution.7 In each district, five to seven constitutional commissioners have been appointed to conduct the consultations. Each district panel of commissioners is to conduct at least one public hearing in each sub-district between mid-June and mid-July. A rapporteur and a constitutional adviser have been appointed to assist each district panel. All commissioners, rapporteurs and advisers are East Timorese. The commissioners are to prepare a report on the consultations to be given to the Transitional Administrator. Once the Constituent Assembly is established, the report of the consultations is to be submitted to it for consideration. A number of UNTAET components are working to support the process. 30. Given the short period in which consultations are to take place and the limited information available to the community concerning both the subject matter of the consultation process and the process itself, the Human Rights Unit has been working with a coalition of non-governmental organizations to mount an information campaign concerning the nature of a constitution, relevant human rights issues and the rights of the East Timorese in the process. In June 2001, the Human Rights Unit assisted a coalition of non-governmental organizations, the NGO Working Group, to convene a one-day conference on the constitutional process, “Together Building a Constitution for East Timor”. Experts from Fiji, South Africa and Thailand spoke of their experiences in seeking to ensure popular involvement in all aspects of constitution-making. East Timorese speakers from political parties, the church and the university were also invited to debate the current process in East Timor. Approximately 180 persons attended the conference. Also organized with the NGO Working Group was a one-day workshop on women and the constitution to discuss means of maximizing women’s involvement in the constitution-making process and of ensuring that women’s rights and interests are reflected in the Constitution itself. 31. The Human Rights Unit also supports the NGO Working Group more generally in its work of ensuring that education on the constitution is a long-term process, rather than something that will end with the election of the Constituent Assembly. Activities after the election will include discussions and advocacy with political parties and members of the Constituent Assembly on a number of issues, including the possibility of an interim constitution as a means to achieve a more comprehensive consultation process. Community education on constitutional issues will also continue. In that connection, the NGO Working Group is producing, with the help of the Human Rights Unit, a series of basic and accessible pamphlets in Tetun and Bahasa Indonesia on issues relating to constitutions, including the nature of a constitution and the human rights issues to be safeguarded in a constitution. The first pamphlet, which discusses the nature of a constitution, has already been completed in Tetun and Bahasa Indonesia and has been distributed widely throughout East Timor. The second pamphlet, on human rights and the constitution, is currently being finalized. 32. The Human Rights Unit has also been actively involved in the training of those conducting the consultations, including the training of the eight trainers who in turn will train the constitutional commissioners. The training not only covered the human rights aspects of the consultation process itself (emphasizing, inter alia, rights of participation, freedom of speech, equality rights and minority rights), but also provided an overview of the ways in which human rights issues might arise during the consultation process itself. More intensive input was provided for the training of the 13 constitutional advisers. Topics covered included identifying human rights concerns and dealing with human rights issues to be included in the constitution. The Human Rights Unit will be monitoring the operation of the constitutional commissions and liaising with them to provide further assistance throughout the whole consultative process. 33. The Human Rights Unit is also considering the situation of human rights in the context of the upcoming elections. In view of the short timescale and the concerns regarding potential political violence, the Unit has produced a leaflet on human rights and democracy to increase awareness about fundamental human rights, such as freedom of speech and assembly, the right to participate in public life and to hold elected office, and non-discrimination principles. The leaflet will be distributed by the district human rights officers and the non-governmental organizations in all districts and will be used in continuing human rights training organized by the Human Rights Unit. The Unit is also working on ensuring that human rights violations committed in the context of the elections are monitored and reported. Furthermore, the Unit is working with the Civilian Police and the Independent Electoral Commission to establish a system for effective and coordinated reporting during the run up to and on election day itself. 4. Civil society and non-governmental organizations 34. In addition to the specific issue-based activities noted above (see paras. 30-33), the Human Rights Unit continues to conduct a number of activities to support the strengthening of civil society, in particular human rights organizations. Following the holding in 2000 of general human rights training in the districts with a wide range of participants, the Unit in 2001 developed a series of training courses for specific groups. In April 2001, the Unit focused on a national training of trainers course, to which the district human rights officers nominated candidates from their districts whom they believed would be able to use their skills to train others. The district human rights officers continue to follow up on the training by providing support to the “trained trainers” to conduct smaller training courses in their own districts. 35. As an integral part of its training programme, the Human Rights Unit has hired East Timorese district human rights officer interns for each of the districts (see para. 7). The interns work side by side with the international district human rights officers to build the capacity of East Timorese to become human rights advocates. 36. One major goal of UNTAET is to ensure that a human rights presence remains in each of the districts after the departure of UNTAET. Therefore, either a non-governmental organization or a loosely formed human rights organization has been established with the support of the district human rights officers in each of the Aileu, Ainaro, Bobonaro and Covalima districts. Support has included the allocation of funds, participation in informal training on human rights by district human rights officers and by the organization itself in the villages and subdistricts, the dissemination of human rights materials, the training of police and the development of an East Timorese human rights manual. UNTAET is working to ensure that those it trains and works with over the coming months will take the lead in protecting and promoting human rights in East Timor in the future. 37. With financial assistance provided by OHCHR, UNTAET is disseminating international human rights promotional and training materials in Tetun and Bahasa Indonesia throughout East Timor. The training team is finalizing negotiations with human rights non￾governmental organizations in Indonesia to translate and publish a number of human rights materials, to include booklets containing various international instruments on, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (General Assembly resolution 217 A (III)), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (see resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex), the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (resolution 34/180 (annex)) and the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (see resolution 48/104), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (resolution 44/25, annex), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (resolution 39/46, annex) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (resolution 2106 A (XX), annex). 38. In addition to training East Timorese counterparts and disseminating promotional material, the Human Rights Unit is developing a means by which the information collated and analysed by it and that of East Timorese non-governmental organizations will be preserved in an accessible format for future use. In that regard, the Unit is in the process of determining the needs of East Timorese human rights non￾governmental organizations, whether for training, hardware or databases, and is working with the non￾governmental organization Fokupers on a database to track cases of violence against women. It is also anticipated that the Unit will play a significant role in the establishment of a database for the Reception, Truth and Reconciliation Commission. C. The reception, truth and reconciliation process 39. On 20 June 2001, the East Timorese National Council unanimously adopted a regulation establishing the Reception, Truth and Reconciliation Commission in East Timor. Subject to funding, it is currently envisaged that the Commission will be operational by the end of 2001. 40. The Commission was first proposed by CNRT in June 2000 and was endorsed by the CNRT Congress. The Human Rights Unit assisted in the further development of the proposal by supporting a steering committee, which undertook the preparatory work leading up to the adoption of the regulation. The committee consisted of representatives of CNRT and key East Timorese human rights non-governmental organizations, namely, Fokupers, Yayasan HAK, ETWAVE, the Justice and Peace Commission of Dili Diocese and the Association of Ex-Political Prisoners. The Committee benefited from the assistance of UNHCR, the Political and Legal Units of UNTAET and the input of two international experts on truth and reconciliation commissions. It undertook a national consultation, visiting all 13 districts, and consulted East Timorese judges, the Officeof the General Prosecutor, public defenders, political parties and other stakeholders. 41. The Commission will have two broad functions. The first will be a truth-telling mechanism in which witnesses and victims of human rights abuses will give testimony, promoting healing, and contribute to the compilation of a national history and recommendations on legal and institutional reforms that will safeguard human rights in the future. There will be no provision for amnesty. 42. The second major function will be to promote community reconciliation by dealing with the many thousands of East Timorese who were involved in low￾level crimes in 1999 and periods before by means of a community-based mechanism rather than the courts. Under those procedures perpetrators will approach the Commission which will form a panel to include local leaders from the community concerned. Victims, witnesses and the community will participate in a hearing and the panel will decide on an appropriate act of reconciliation, which may take the form of community service, repayment, public apology or other act, but must comply with international human rights norms and be proportional to the offence. The decision of the panel will be registered as a court order and once satisfactorily discharged will exempt the perpetrator from further civil or criminal liability. The courts will deal with serious crimes such as murder, rape or organizing large-scale violence. 43. The community mechanisms are intended to be cheaper and faster than the already overburdened fledgling justice system, will involve the community in the process and will assist reconciliation in a practical way. As the majority of the ex-militia in West Timor are low-level perpetrators, it is hoped that the Commission process will be an incentive for them to return to their communities safely. D. The protection of ethnic and religious minorities and other vulnerable groups 44. The Human Rights Unit, through its office in Dili and its district human rights officers, continues to address the need for protection of particular vulnerable groups, the security of East Timorese refugees returning from West Timor and violence against women. 1. The protection of ethnic and religious minorities 45. The future of minorities in East Timor is uncertain. Currently, there are no regulations governing their status. The border regulation stipulates that a renewable three-month visa is required for persons who wish to reside in East Timor unless such individuals were born in East Timor before December 1975, were born outside East Timor but with one parent or grandparent born in East Timor before 1975 or are the spouse or the dependent child under 18 of a person who falls under the other two categories. This includes persons who resided in East Timor on a permanent basis before the popular consultation and includes, for example, the case of an ethnic Chinese businessman who moved to East Timor with his Chinese wife in 1982, bore and raised three children, purchased two properties and developed a private business in East Timor. A second matter of concern relates to the fate of Muslims, approximately 240 of whom remain in the Dili Mosque. The Muslims fled to West Timor with other refugees following the violence surrounding the popular consultation, but returned to the Dili Mosque soon after the violence. As there are no protection mechanisms for minorities, they fear for their safety if they try to return to their homes. 2. Human rights violations against women; women’s rights as human rights 46. Though the legal position is that violence against women is a crime, non-governmental organizations have reported that the judicial system (including the Civilian Police and the Timorese Police) have not, in some cases, pursued matters involving violence against women vigorously. Furthermore, there is a perception that some elements of Timorese society wish to deal with such crimes more leniently by using traditional dispute resolution mechanisms. This contributes to a culture in which such offences are not considered as serious as they are treated in the applicable criminal law and fall short of international standards. The Civilian Police has, however, taken a number of initiatives to address the issue, including the setting up of the Vulnerable Persons Unit to deal with cases of violence against women and other vulnerable groups. To date, only the Dili District Vulnerable Persons Unit has adequate resources to deal with such cases. There are continuing problems, however, with non￾governmental organizations’ reports of gender bias in court proceedings, which result in the unfair administration of justice for victims of violence against women. 47. Traditionally, women have not been encouraged to participate in public life in East Timor. “Public life” ranges from simply working outside the home to participating in government or political structures. The ETTA Gender Affairs Unit takes the lead on this issue, providing training to women entering public service and ensuring that women are represented in the newly created structures of East Timorese civil society and government. The Human Rights Unit works to support their initiatives, in particular, by mainstreaming women’s and gender issues in its training on human rights and assisting non-governmental organizations in its strategic plans to address women’s issues. For example, the Human Rights Unit has included non￾discrimination and women’s rights in its training and has also invited women’s organizations to make presentations on their work. Nearly 50 per cent of the participants in the training have been women and the Human Rights Unit welcomed their active participation. The Unit also ensured that the steering committee that drafted the regulation for the establishment of a Reception, Truth and Reconciliation Commission included female members from leading women’s non-governmental organizations and the Commission itself has been formed in such a way as to ensure that women survivors will testify. For instance, gender guidelines will be distributed for the commissioners to follow, some cases will be held in camera (cases involving women are particularly envisaged), 30 per cent of the national and regional commissioners will be women and ETWAVE is represented on the panel selecting the commissioners. 48. The Human Rights Unit has assisted Fokupers, a non-governmental organization focusing specifically on women’s issues, to create a database to track violence against women and also the cases of women whose partners were killed, detained or tortured in 1999. The Unit is able to pass that information to the Serious Crimes Unit and facilitates the relationship between non-governmental organizations and that Unit. There are currently at least 114 known cases of rape that occurred during the violence surrounding the popular consultation in 1999, attributable mostly to militia groups. The Serious Crimes Unit estimates that, as investigations continue, that figure will increase significantly. At the beginning of February 2001, five suspects were indicted on charges of crimes against humanity, including rape. This was the first indictment for crimes against humanity in East Timor where rape was included as one of the crimes. 49. In order to ensure a continuum of support for women who suffered as a result of the violence in 1999, the Human Rights Unit also links survivors to non-governmental organizations for, among other things, trauma counselling, planning and finding resources for future support. The Unit has facilitated the establishment of or provided support to women survivors’ self-help groups in Covalima, Maliana, Bobonaro and Liquisa districts. It also liaises with Indonesian non-governmental organizations, including organizations in West Timor, and with the Indonesian National Human Rights Commission, the Indonesian Commission on the Elimination of Violence against Women and the Indonesian Commission on Child Rights in connection with ongoing cases of violence against women in West Timor. 50. Further progress has been made with Ratelaek, a women survivors’ group in Liquisa, which has completed a project supported by the Office for Transition Initiatives of the United States Agency for International Development and planned with the Human Rights Unit. The project includes the establishment of a cooperative, which runs a restaurant and a shop, an exchange visit to other survivors’ groups in Maliana and Suai, financial management training and an exhibition on the contribution of East Timorese women to the independence struggle. 3. East Timorese refugees 51. According to UNHCR figures, as at 15 June 2001, 180,662 refugees had returned from West Timor to East Timor. Estimates of the number of refugees remaining in West Timor range from 90,000 to 130,000. Many refugees remain fearful to return because of misinformation in the refugee camps that leads them to believe that fighting is continuing in East Timor and it is not safe for them to return. 52. On 6 and 7 June 2001, the Government of Indonesia conducted registration of refugees in West Timor. Refugees were required to register and to indicate whether or not they wanted to stay in Indonesia or be repatriated to East Timor. Information about the process was conveyed by camp leaders and members of the Union of East Timorese Heroes (UNITAS) (a political grouping composed of East Timorese parties in favour of the integration of East Timor with West Timor). Only heads of family were entitled to vote. 53. Preliminary results announced by the Government of Indonesia confirmed the registration of 113,794 refugees, with 111,540, or 98.02 per cent, electing to stay in Indonesia and only 1,250, or 1.1 per cent seeking to return. Many commentators have surmised that it is likely that a large number of refugees voted to stay in Indonesia due to fear of reprisal by militia and/or because they were not yet ready to return to East Timor, wanting instead to wait for the outcome of the 30 August elections, which would allow them to make an assessment of the chances of intimidation against returnees. This was confirmed by the 12 international observers of the process who concluded in their report that, although the procedures respected confidentiality and integrity:8 “The overwhelming majority of refugees interviewed held high expectations of the assistance that was to be provided to those opting to stay in Indonesia. Opting for return was widely understood as meaning that they would have to do so almost immediately, thereby, as explained by the refugees, forfeiting the right to any severance package for government employees or preventing children in school from taking exams.” 54. The Indonesian task force responsible for the repatriation of refugees who chose to return is reported to have told the United Nations military observers that the returns were to begin on 15 June 2001 and would continue until 15 August 2001. West Timor’s provincial governor has reportedly stated that, of those who chose to remain in Indonesia, only 6,000 would be able to resettle permanently in West Timor. The remainder of the population would be required to resettle in other parts of Indonesia. The Government of Indonesia has not yet released official results of registration and therefore official repatriation has yet to start. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) is reportedly drawing up plans to repatriate refugees pursuant to the registration. 55. While UNTAET is working in coordination with UNHCR to determine how best to expedite and ensure the returnees’ safe return, the Human Rights Unit specifically focuses on what happens to them after return. In some cases, returnees will not be welcomed back, in particular those who participated in serious crimes, while others may be seen as traitors or common criminals since they participated in low-level violence in the aftermath of the popular consultation. It is the return of the latter that requires preparation to ensure that they are not targeted but instead taken back into the community. 56. The district human rights officers prepare the communities for the returns, where they are able and usually in coordination with the other actors of the international community within the framework of a district returns committee. Often, the Human Rights Unit receives information at the last minute that a number of refugees are returning to a certain area and then works to determine who the returnees are and if there will be any concern surrounding their return. In cases where allegations already exist or surface regarding some of the returnees, the district human rights officer, together with other members of the international community, will call together community leaders to ensure that the returnees are not met with any hostility or harassment. Of course, if the returnee has been indicted or if there are allegations that he or she has committed serious crimes, then that returnee must be brought to justice. In other cases, however, and where allegations are unsubstantiated, the international community needs to ensure that allegations do not translate into violence. In situations where community leaders are unable to reach an agreement on a certain return, safe houses of varying capacity and quality are available in eight and are under construction in four of the districts. Under no circumstances, however, will the Human Rights Unit accommodate a request to reject the return of anyone wishing to return. E. Political issues affecting human rights 1. Law and order 57. Before the popular consultation, CNRT played a central role in East Timorese life, coordinating the clandestine resistance movement and distributing information outside East Timor to support the independence movement. The Council provided support to victims of Indonesian violations and took significant risks in doing so. Immediately after the popular consultation, the CNRT stepped in to fill the vacuum in many essential services, including some law and order functions, often with the knowledge and cooperation of the Civilian Police, who were at that time still building up full capacity. Since 1999, CNRT has assisted UNTAET in resolvingmany of the issues inherent in a post-conflict society and has been active in preparing East Timor for the transition to an independent State. 58. However, despite the mandate and increased capacity of the Civilian Police and the newly established East Timorese Police Service, members of various parallel structures — some part of the CNRT village, district and national structures, including the Seguranza Civil and persons claiming to be ex￾members of the former military wing of CNRT, FALINTIL — continue to fulfil what they perceive to be a security role, which often extends to the enforcement of law and order. The justification claimed for this is often that the official structures are unable to maintain security effectively. The situation is, of course, extremely problematic, as none of those quasi￾security groups are accountable for their actions and therefore act with impunity. UNTAET has received reports of human rights abuses by members of such groups, in particular in relation to returnees. Included in those reports are instances of unlawful arrests, “summonsing” returnees to appear before the security structures in order to question them about their activities in West Timor, assaults and, in at least one case, the murder of a returnee while in the custody of one of the groups. In other cases, individuals have used the guise of a security group to cover illegal activities, including extortion, threats and intimidation for political purposes. 59. With the dissolution of CNRT on 9 June 2001, the security groups linked to the organization were formally disbanded. There has already been a suggestion that the security groups should now report directly to the village chief. UNTAET is concerned that this may lead to potential abuses of power, in particular in the run-up to the election. 2. Human rights and political activity 60. Several political parties have adopted platforms advocating political tolerance and the protection of human rights. However, concerns linger that the 1975 political climate may be reintroduced and violence may occur during the election campaign. That concern has been supported in part by a series of skirmishes that have taken place during 2001 between followers of East Timorese political groups, which led to the detention of 13 people on 8 March 2001 in Baucau. Their detention subsequently resulted in an eruption of violence, including the burning of the Baucau Mosque. 61. Sporadic outbreaks of violence have not been the only concern regarding the conduct of political parties. At the end of 2000 and the beginning of 2001, party workers of the Frente Revolucionária do Timor Leste Independente (Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor, FRETILIN) “registered” all “supporters”. UNTAET has received reports that some villagers felt obliged to register themselves and their families as sympathizers if not militants. FRETILIN have also been accused of warning individuals to vote for them or suffer the consequences, while both Democratic Republic of East Timor (RDTL) supporters and the Timorese Democratic Association have been accused of trying to prevent individuals from participating in the civil registration process, which is required in order to vote in the August elections. For its part, the Human Rights Unit seeks to address those issues mainly via its civic education programme, through which the Unit promotes the idea of breaking with the past and the need for political parties to be tolerant of each other. IV. Ongoing and future key areas of work to promote and protect human rights in East Timor 62. The mandate of UNTAET as transitional government expires on 31 January 2002. The United Nations is therefore currently engaged in a process of assessing the extent to which the new independent East Timorese Government will require ongoing technical assistance. Experience reveals that a post-conflict situation is often accompanied by the creation of a fertile environment for future institutionalized violations of human rights. Signs of the potential problem are already apparent in East Timor and it is imperative that a strong human rights presence remain there to ensure that that fertile environment is not exploited. OHCHR and the Human Rights Unit have identified a number of areas as requiring immediate and medium-term United Nations technical assistance to support the new East Timorese Government’s efforts to promote and protect human rights. 63. Progress in East Timor in investigating and prosecuting suspects for the serious crimes committed in East Timor in 1999 has been slower than hoped for. Further attention and resources must be devoted to ensuring that the process of investigation and prosecution is speeded up, taking account, for instance, of the risk of deterioration of evidence. 64. The nascent East Timorese judicial system is only functioning in part. In order to build a judiciary from the ground up with only very limited human resources available and a largely destroyed infrastructure requires long-term commitment and considerable resources. Assistance will be required to support the training, continuing professional development and adherence to ethical standards by the judiciary, prosecutors, public defenders and other legal and judicial officials. Attention will also be required to focus on satisfactorily addressing the inadequate remuneration and other poor conditions of service and risks to personal safety. Independent monitoring mechanisms of the judicial and legal process will be required. Most important for a newly democratic State will be the need to educate the East Timorese public about the new system of justice in order to develop the confidence of the people that it will indeed deliver justice. 65. The new East Timorese Government will need to ensure that all legislation adopted is consistent with international human rights standards. Training will be required to ensure that those who interpret and implement the law do so in accordance with international standards. 66. The recent experience of many newly democratized countries has demonstrated the critical need for a constitution based firmly on democratic principles, containing a strong bill of rights in full conformity with international standards and establishing one or more institutions in support of democracy, such as a national commission on human rights. Experience has also shown that it is important for such a constitution to be adopted as soon as possible and to enter into force, at least provisionally, at the same time as the newly elected democratic Government accedes to power. This is because during the period before the accession to power of a new Government the greatest consensus exists among all political parties and civil society over the need for a strong bill of rights and effective democratic institutions to be enshrined in the new constitution. That period also coincides with the time when the public is generally most interested in national affairs and can be effectively mobilized to participate in the historic constitution-making process. It should be noted that such public consultation and participation is a key element in ensuring the ultimate accountability of a new Government to the people. Most importantly, the Timorese themselves have expressed interest in recent constitutional hearings for the protection of human rights to be enshrined in their first constitution. 67. Non-governmental organizations in East Timor played an active and vital role in the resistance movement and worked towards the common goal of independence. Of real concern to the non-governmental organizations now is the continuing evolution of their role, which in 2001 moved towards the more traditional role for a non-governmental organization of monitoring the human rights situation, providing analysis and advice to the Government and conducting human rights training. It is possible that, following the departure of UNTAET, there may be a tendency by the new East Timorese Government to exclude the participation of non-governmental organizations in its work. 68. Another concern affecting the future viability of non-governmental organizations is the flow of non￾governmental organizations staff to ETTA. More may choose to stand for election on 30 August. Others have been given opportunities internationally. Thus, many of the more experienced members of the non￾governmental organizations community will no longer be playing a leading role in that arena. 69. The newly established judiciary, the East Timor Police Service, the East Timor Defence Force and staff of the civil service all require ongoing training in human rights. The general public has also had no exposure to a culture of human rights. Without a solid foundation, the promotion and protection of human rights will not become an integral part of the East Timorese State. 70. Upon independence, East Timor will be in a position to ratify the key international human rights instruments. Technical assistance will be required both for the ratification process itself and for compliance with reporting obligations to the relevant treaty bodies. 71. The joint OHCHR/UNTAET training for the East Timorese Police Service was their first exposure to human rights training. Most participants had had less than two years’ experience in the police. That overall lack of experience represents a major challenge for the East Timorese to assume, by 2002, full responsibility in the country for maintaining law and order. Among the areas needing attention are human rights and police investigations, arrest procedures, policing public gatherings and the use of force and firearms. It will also be important to establish effective mechanisms for monitoring, investigating and preventing abuses within the police. 72. The Reception, Truth and Reconciliation Commission will have a mandate to investigate violations of human rights committed in the context of the political conflict from 25 April 1974 to 25 October 1999. The mandate will be for two years, with a possible extension of six months, and the Commission will be led by between five and seven national commissioners who will be appointed by a panel made up of representatives of civil society, the church and political parties who were active in 1974. Funding for the Commission must be raised outside the national budget and the Commission will require ongoing technical assistance. 73. Tolerance, acceptance of minorities and a rejection of a past ridden with violations of human rights are the only way forward to true reconciliation. This must be the basis on which to overcome the lack of protection mechanisms available for minorities. In addition, education regarding gender equality and women’s rights will continue to be required in all spheres of life, in particular in the political domain, as will analysis of the use of traditional dispute resolution mechanisms in order to ensure that the state apparatus is complying with its international legal obligations. The challenge of protecting returnees, facilitating their integration and promoting reconciliation will remain vital to the continuing stability of independent East Timor. 74. Since October 1999, human rights monitoring by both UNTAET and non-governmental organizations human rights monitors has assisted in the process of identifying needs in the development of East Timor’s new institutions. From its inception, the newly independent East Timor Government will face the huge task of establishing and consolidating the key institutions that will be required for the legislative, judiciary and executive branches of power to assume their respective responsibilities of establishing a functioning system of the rule of law based on principles of human rights. Independent human rights monitoring across the country will continue to be essential for the development of strong institutions that uphold law and order and also in ensuring a stable political environment. 75. Monitoring of the developing institutions in East Timor will provide the future independent Government and civil society with impartial, objective informative feedback on how well the newly created institutions are functioning, highlighting areas needing corrective action, improvement and reform. Such a programme would provide the Government with a solid and reliable factual basis for monitoring the functioning of those institutions, drawing attention to problem areas and designing corrective measures and appropriate responses. 76. The continuing presence of illegitimate security forces and the illegal activities of political parties need to be monitored and addressed. Continued independent monitoring of human rights will also be vital for, in particular, the safe return of those refugees in West Timor who wish to return, many of whom fear reprisal upon return, which has potentially serious consequences for the security and stability of independent East Timor. Independent monitoring across East Timor will go some way to ensuring that those refugees who choose to return will feel more secure in doing so. V. Recommendations 77. In facing the challenge of strengthening new and vulnerable institutions, it will be essential to develop strong mechanisms for the protection of human rights, including rights based, inter alia, on provisions of the constitution, legislation, government structures and procedures. Taking into account the ongoing human rights situation in East Timor, with both the potential for escalation and the challenge of prevention, the High Commissioner recommends that a sturdy United Nations human rights component fully equipped to address the situation be maintained in the period following the UNTAET mission. 78. As in all steps to promote and protect human rights, consideration of the interests of women must be central. Adequate attention and resources are required to address the particular obstacles women face in the exercise of their rights. The implications for women of any legislation adopted or policy pursued must be assessed and addressed by the new Government of East Timor. 79. The High Commissioner reaffirms her call for justice for grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law and that the perpetrators of the serious crimes of 1999 be speedily prosecuted under the law. At the present critical moment, just a few months before East Timor reaches long-awaited independence, the High Commissioner reiterates her call upon the East Timorese, UNTAET, the Indonesian leadership and other relevant actors in the international community to ensure that the necessary human and material resources are made available and that the political will is galvanized to ensure that justice is done. For, while appreciating the need in East Timor for reconciliation and the need to move forward, there is also a need to ensure that serious crimes do not go unpunished. Impunity for such crimes and a return to the legal fold for the perpetrators would undermine from the very beginning the capacity to build in a credible manner a culture embodying respect for the rule of the law, where the equality of all before the law is a cardinal principle. 80. In that regard, the High Commissioner recommends that UNTAET and ETTA, in cooperation with OHCHR, draw up plans to ensure the unhampered continuation of the tasks of the Serious Crimes Unit during the winding-down phase of UNTAET and following the end of the mission. The completion of its tasks must not be subjected to the expiration of the mandate of UNTAET and must continue until the most serious crimes have been prosecuted. 81. The High Commissioner notes that a serious lack of resources, both human and material, in the Serious Crimes Unit has continued to prevent investigations from being undertaken in connection with the overwhelming majority of crimes against humanity committed in 1999. The High Commissioner welcomes, however, the opening of the Los Palos trial and recognizes the importance of the holding of that trial, in accordance with international standards of justice, and its outcome will have for the people of East Timor. 82. Notwithstanding the statement of the Indonesian Foreign Minister to the Secretary-General that “the national judicial mechanism of the Republic of Indonesia is functioning and capable of dispensing justice”9 and the encouragement of the Security Council to “institute a swift, comprehensive, effective and transparent legal process, in conformity with international standards of justice and due process of law”,10 the High Commissioner notes with concern that not one case arising from the 1999 violence has been concluded in Indonesia. 83. The High Commissioner welcomes the decision of the Government of Indonesia to revise the Presidential Decree establishing the ad hoc court for East Timor so as to include reference to cases that took place before the popular consultation and reiterates her call for the revision to take place with all speed. In that regard, the High Commissioner renews her offer to provide technical cooperation to the Government of Indonesia to support the administration of justice and recalls that her Office has drawn up a full programme in that connection, to be implemented when the existence of the appropriate conditions makes it possible. 84. The High Commissioner also recalls the recommendation of the International Commission of Inquiry on East Timor that:11 “Future action with regard to the violations of human rights in East Timor should be governed by the following human rights principles: the individual’s right to have an effective remedy for violations of human rights, which includes the State’s responsibility to investigate violations, prosecute criminally and punish those responsible; the individual’s right to reparation and compensation for violations of human rights from the State responsible for the violations; the need to act against impunity in order to discourage future violations of basic human rights”. The High Commissioner also recalls the recommendation of the International Commission that the United Nations establish an international human rights tribunal consisting of judges appointed by the United Nations to receive complaints and to try and sentence those accused of serious violations of fundamental human rights and international law that occurred in East Timor in 1999.12 85. The High Commissioner recognizes the enormous difficulties and challenges posed by the need to establish a judicial and legal system from the very beginning and appreciates the efforts of UNTAET and ETTA, in particular the Department of Judicial Affairs and the Human Rights Unit, in putting in place the building blocks for that process. Nonetheless, the High Commissioner notes that the judiciary is yet to become self-sustainable, resulting in serious shortcomings in the law. The High Commissioner therefore recommends that UNTAET, ETTA and the new East Timorese Government ensure the provision of resources, training and support for the development of a judicial system premised upon respect for the rule of law. Taking into account the long-term nature of the sustainability of the judiciary, the High Commissioner calls upon donors to provide adequate funding for that process. 86. Given the complexity of the current legal framework in East Timor, the High Commissioner recommends that legislative reform and drafting, in accordance with international human rights standards, continue to be a high priority. The High Commissioner renews her offer to provide ongoing technical cooperation to assist in the drafting of legislation and in the interpretation and implementation of those standards. 87. The High Commissioner recognizes that the process of constitution-making is an important opportunity for the East Timorese to define the aims and scope of the structures of power. Accordingly, the High Commissioner encourages UNTAET, ETTA and the new East Timorese Government to ensure that the process leading towards the adoption of a constitution is a thoroughly consultative and participatory process. That process is already under way and should be continued as a matter of priority. The sense of priority, however, must be balanced by the requirement that the East Timorese be given adequate time and access to adequate information in order to participate fully in discussions on the new constitution. Furthermore, the timetable envisaged for the consultation process and election of the Constituent Assembly is short. 88. The High Commissioner encourages detailed discussion of the way in which the constitution might best protect the human rights of all East Timorese and reaffirms her call for the international human rights standards to which East Timor has already committed itself to be reflected in appropriate provisions of the constitution. Such a step would ensure that the foundation of the newest member of the United Nations is based upon respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction. 89. The High Commissioner calls upon UNTAET, ETTA and the new East Timorese Government to recognize fully the unique role and contribution of non￾governmental organizations, both in the past and in the future and to ensure that they continue to play an integral part in the development of East Timor. They should also encourage and facilitate participation of the wider civil society in community affairs. 90. The High Commissioner welcomes the efforts of UNTAET and international and East Timorese non￾governmental organizations to ensure that human rights education is as widespread as possible throughout East Timor. At the same time, the High Commissioner recognizes the fundamental need to further such education in all spheres of society in East Timor. 91. The High Commissioner strongly encourages the new East Timorese Government to ratify all key international human rights instruments at the earliest possible opportunity. The High Commissioner also advises that sufficient technical assistance should be made available to assist the new Government to implement its international legal obligations and comply with reporting obligations. To do so would assist East Timor in building a society based upon a culture of human rights, entrenched through the rule of law. 92. Following on from the human rights training provided by OHCHR and UNTAET to the East Timorese Police Service and the Civilian Police, the High Commissioner strongly endorses the calls by UNTAET that human rights training be integrated into the police training curriculum. In that regard, the High Commissioner welcomes the positive reception to those calls by the Director of the East Timor Police Training College. 93. The High Commissioner encourages consideration of formal mechanisms to promote and protect human rights in East Timor, including the possible establishment of an independent national human rights institution in accordance with standards adopted by the United Nations. In that regard, the High Commissioner welcomes the initiative of UNTAET to assist a working group of non-governmental organizations to consider the various mechanisms and institutions appropriate for East Timor. The High Commissioner reiterates the need for civil society to be involved in the development of any governmental initiative that addresses human rights concerns and for adequate training and resources to be provided for agencies whose work has a direct impact on the individual’s enjoyment of those rights. 94. The High Commissioner congratulates those involved in the events leading to the adoption of the regulation on the establishment of the Reception, Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The High Commissioner recognizes the importance that mechanism can play, as a complement to the judicial process for serious crimes, and encourages donors to provide the required resources to the Commission. 95. The High Commissioner notes with concern the situation of ethnic and religious minorities in East Timor and calls upon UNTAET, ETTA and the new East Timorese Government to provide protection mechanisms in order to ensure that the East Timorese minorities live peacefully with their indigenous East Timorese neighbours. 96. The High Commissioner calls upon UNTAET, ETTA and the new East Timorese Government to find a solution based on international human rights standards for persons still living in the Dili Mosque. The High Commissioner also calls upon UNTAET, ETTA and the new East Timorese Government to introduce legislation protecting minorities and to amend any legislation that allows for illegal discriminatory behaviour. 97. The High Commissioner vigorously supports the work of UNTAET in its efforts to encourage the protection and promotion of women’s rights. Moreover, though recognizing that in certain instances it may be appropriate to recommend that a problem be solved through traditional means, she affirms that violence against women should be seriously addressed in both criminal law and practice. 98. The High Commissioner recommends that UNTAET, ETTA and the new East Timorese Government ensure the preparation and facilitation of conditions for the safe return of internally displaced persons and refugees from West Timor. 99. The concerns raised by the behaviour of certain political groups, who have acted in a manner indicating a belief that they are not accountable to the authorities, including through the maintenance of security groups existing without legal authority in parallel to the legitimate police and defence forces, illegal detention and interrogation of returnees and other individuals and the use of threats and intimidation for political goals, require more attention from the legitimate authorities. The High Commissioner calls upon UNTAET, ETTA and the new East Timorese Government to pursue vigorously the establishment of a climate of accountability and respect for the rule of law. 100. The High Commissioner welcomes the important role that human rights must play in forming the bedrock of a democratic society and encourages UNTAET, ETTA and the new East Timorese Government to ensure that human rights values are at the centre of daily political activity. Notes 1 The mandate of UNTAET is set out in Security Council resolution 1272 (1999), which established UNTAET as the transitional administration in East Timor as follows: to provide security and maintain law and order throughout the territory of East Timor; to establish an effective administration; to assist in the development of civil and social services; to ensure the coordination and delivery of humanitarian assistance, rehabilitation and development assistance; to support capacity-building for self-government; and to assist in the establishment of conditions for sustainable development. 2 The responsibilities of ETTA follow from the UNTAET mandate and ETTA exists within UNTAET, with a separate budget. Part of the UNTAET mandate includes establishing an effective administration, supporting capacity-building for self-government as well as assisting in the establishment of conditions for sustainable development. To accomplish those objectives, the Transitional Administration (the Special Representative of the Secretary-General) initially created a component of the UNTAET mission known as the Governance and Public Administration, which was overseen by the Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General). The role of the Governance and Public Administration was to create an initial framework for the establishment of the future Government and to begin nation-building. International staff, in charge of both international and local staff, initially managed each of the departments of the Governance and Public Administration, such as Land and Property, Civil Service and Agriculture. In July 2000, CNRT and UNTAET jointly agreed to restructure the mission and transformed the Governance and Public Administration into the East Timorese Transitional Administration (ETTA), in order to increase the direct participation and political responsibility of the East Timorese in furtherance of Security Council resolution 1272 (1999). All Cabinet officers are answerable to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General. Within ETTA, several East Timorese have been appointed heads of departments and all district administrators are East Timorese. Nothing in this new governmental structure affects the overall responsibility for East Timor that the Security Council in its resolution 1272 (1999) has given to UNTAET; rather, it seeks to further the UNTAET mandate to build the capacity of the East Timorese for self-government and to create conditions for sustainable development. 3 UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences defines “serious crimes” as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, murder, sexual offences and torture. 4 For instance, only nine East Timorese public defenders and three international public defenders serve on both the serious crimes and ordinary crimes panels in each of the four district courts. 5 In Suai, though there is a panel of three judges, one investigating judge and two prosecutors, there are no permanent public defenders. In Oecussi, there is one prosecutor and one investigating judge, but there is no judge or permanent public defender. Although there are no permanent public defenders in those courts, a system of mobile public defenders has been put in place until such time as it will be possible to have permanent public defenders in all courts. 6 UNTAET reported that, at the time of writing, a further four public defenders were being recruited by the Department of Justice. 7 UNTAET reported that, as at 6 July 2001, 24,408 people had participated in over 250 hearings held in the 13 districts. 8 Findings of the International Observers on the Registration of East Timorese in Nusa Tenggara Timur, 13 June 2001. Brunei Darussalam, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mozambique, Norway, the Philippines, Portugal and Thailand, UNTAET and the International Organization for Migration sent observers. 9 Letter dated 26 January 2000 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia to the Secretary-General (A/54/727-S/2000/65, annex). 10 Letter dated 18 February 2000 from the President of the Security Council to the Secretary-General in connection with the report of the International Commission of Inquiry on East Timor (S/2000/137). 11 Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on East Timor (A/54/726-S/2000/59, annex, para. 148). 12 Ibid., para. 153.

448094

United Nations A/56/187 General Assembly Distr.: General 12 July 2001 English Original: Arabic/English/Spanish 01-45925 (E) 140801 240801 *0145925* Fifty-sixth session Item 83 of the preliminary list* Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East Report of the Secretary-General** Contents Paragraphs Page I. Introduction .......................................................... 1–2 2 II. Observations.......................................................... 3–4 2 III. Replies received from Governments................................................ 2 Belgium*** ................................................................... 2 Egypt......................................................................... 3 Mexico ....................................................................... 4 Syrian Arab Republic ........................................................... 5 * A/56/50. ** The present report includes replies received from Member States up to July 2001. *** On behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the European Union. I. Introduction 1. In paragraph 10 of its resolution 55/30 of 20 November 2000, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to continue to pursue consultations with the States of the region of the Middle East and other concerned States, in accordance with paragraph 7 of resolution 46/30 of 6 December 1991 and taking into account the evolving situation in the region, and to seek from those States their views on the measures outlined in chapters III and IV of the study annexed to his report (A/45/435) or other relevant measures, in order to move towards the establishment of a nuclear￾weapon-free zone in the Middle East. In paragraph 11 of the same resolution, the Assembly also requested the Secretary-General to submit to it at its fifty-sixth session a report on the implementation of the resolution. The present report is submitted pursuant to that request. 2. On 16 February 2001, the Secretary-General addressed a note verbale to all Member States drawing attention to paragraph 10 of resolution 55/30 and seeking the views of Member States on the matter. Replies were received from Belgium (on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the European Union), Egypt, Mexico and the Syrian Arab Republic. The text of those replies is reproduced in section III below and any additional replies from Member States will be issued in an addendum to the present report. II. Observations 3. The issue of the establishment of a nuclear￾weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East continues to be high on the agenda of the international community. In that context, measures with regard to the Middle East, especially the implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East, were included in the Final Document1 of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (“the Non-Proliferation Treaty”), which was adopted by consensus. The agreements reached also reaffirmed the broad measure of support for the establishment of such a zone in the region of the Middle East. It is to be regretted that no further progress has been achieved since. 4. The Secretary-General has on several occasions carried out various consultations with concerned parties within and outside the region in order to explore further ways and means of promoting the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, taking into account the evolving situation in the region as well as the continuing efforts by the Arab States to establish such a zone. It is clear that the realization of that goal requires the participation of all States of the region, as well as other interested States, including the nuclear-weapon States. Adherence to the Non￾Proliferation Treaty2 and full implementation of its provisions are essential steps towards that goal. The Secretary-General firmly believes that the multilateral Working Group on Arms Control and Regional Security could play a useful role as a forum for discussing a broad range of arms control, disarmament and confidence-building measures, including the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region. It is therefore important that the parties of the region and other States concerned reach an early agreement on a comprehensive agenda for the Working Group so that it can commence formal activities as soon as possible. The Secretary-General calls on all concerned to review the situation in order to resume discussions with a view to developing practical concepts aimed at reaching a common position. The Secretary-General also reaffirms the continued readiness of the United Nations to provide any assistance deemed helpful in that regard. III. Replies received from Governments Belgium* [Original: English] [16 July 2001] 1. The European Union recalls the guidelines on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, adopted by the Disarmament Commission at its 1999 session,3 stipulating that the establishment of nuclear-weapon￾free zones should be based on arrangements freely arrived at by the States of the region. 2. The European Union also takes note of Security Council resolution 687 (1991), recalling the goal of * On behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the European Union. establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery. 3. The European Union further recalls the conclusion of the report of the Secretary-General of 10 October 1990 (A/45/435) that the nuclear threat can be effectively and permanently eliminated only as a pattern of sound regional security relationships is developed. 4. The European Union recognizes the importance of confidence-building measures, such as nuclear￾weapon-free zones, as an integral part of a comprehensive, regional security arrangement, based on peaceful and friendly relations between all States in the Middle East. The Union stresses that the creation of a secure and stable environment for all States, which would facilitate the establishment of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction, is first and foremost the responsibility of the States in the Middle East. 5. The European Union has repeatedly called on all States to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and recalls the decisions and the resolution on the Middle East adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non￾Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference. The Union equally attaches great importance to the universal adherence to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (General Assembly resolution 50/245, annex), the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction,4 the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (resolution 2826 (XXVI), annex), and to agreements between States and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the application of safeguards with additional protocols, and considers those treaties and agreements to be in the best interest of all States, as they constitute important steps to promoting non-proliferation and disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, thereby contributing to international and regional confidence, stability and peace. 6. The European Union urges the States of the region to devote themselves to efforts to develop peaceful and friendly relations, with a view to creating a secure and stable environment for all States in the region, thereby rendering possible the establishment of a zone free from all weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery in the Middle East. Egypt [Original: English [18 July 2001] 1. Egypt’s commitment to the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East is unquestionable. It was at the request of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Egypt that the item entitled “Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East” was first inscribed on the agenda of the General Assembly in 1974. Since that date, the Assembly has annually adopted a resolution, by consensus since 1980, on the matter. Throughout the years, Egypt continued to play a consistently leading role in promoting the objective of ridding the Middle East of the threat of nuclear weapons. 2. As a State party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a signatory to the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (the Pelindaba Treaty), Egypt has clearly and unambiguously demonstrated its rejection of the nuclear option, which represents a major threat to peace, security and stability in the Middle East. Today, Egypt notes that all States of the Middle East have become parties to the NPT with the exception of Israel, which regrettably persists in ignoring repeated calls to join the Treaty and to place all its nuclear facilities under IAEA full-scope safeguards, thereby perpetuating a dangerous imbalance in the region. 3. The importance given during the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East is yet another testimony to the commitment of the international community to the establishment of such a zone in the region. Further to the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East, the 2000 Review Conference adopted unanimously in its final document a reaffirmation for the importance of Israel’s accession to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. The Conference recalled that in paragraph 4 of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East it had called upon all States in the Middle East that had not yet done so, without exception, to accede to the Treaty as soon as possible and to place their nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards. The Conference noted, in that connection, that the report of the United Nations Secretariat on the implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East stated that several States had acceded to the Treaty and that, with those accessions, all States of the region of the Middle East, with the exception of Israel, were States parties to the Treaty. The Conference welcomed the accession of those States and reaffirmed the importance of Israel’s accession to the Treaty and the placement of all its nuclear facilities under the comprehensive IAEA safeguards in realizing the goal of universal adherence to the Treaty in the Middle East. 4. Egypt is cognizant of the fact that the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East is a difficult task. Indeed, each region of the world has its own characteristics and each zone must be tailored to suit those characteristics. However, Egypt does not share the view that full-scale peace and fully developed political and economic relations between all States of the region are a prerequisite for the commencement of negotiations on the establishment of a zone. If such an argument was correct, it is unlikely that the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (“the Treaty of Tlatelolco”)5 or even the Treaty of Pelindaba would ever have been negotiated. Regrettably, conflicts continue to rage in various parts of Africa to this very day, yet such conflicts were not invoked as reasons to prevent negotiations on an African nuclear-weapon-free zone. To Egypt, experience has shown that the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in areas of tension and conflicts does indeed contribute to easing tensions, preventing conflicts and developing peaceful relations and mutual cooperation. 5. For a nuclear-weapon-free zone to be established in any area of the world, there must inevitably exist a regional commitment to that objective. Such a commitment is unquestionably present in the Middle East, as is testified to by the annual adoption of a consensus resolution of the General Assembly on the matter and by the adoption of consensus guidelines by the Disarmament Commission at its 1999 substantive session on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned. In that connection, Egypt notes with satisfaction that there is agreement that the establishment of a nuclear-weapon￾free zone in the Middle East as well as the development of a zone free from all weapons of mass destruction should be encouraged. Egypt considers that it is imperative that those commitments be turned into concrete actions if it is to have a determining and positive impact on the Middle East peace process. 6. Making negotiations on a Middle East nuclear￾weapon-free zone contingent upon an ever growing list of prerequisites is a sure recipe for failure. In Egypt’s view, the only prerequisite for negotiations to commence on the establishment of a zone in the Middle East is that States in the region have the political will to sit together and commence negotiations. Viewing the Middle East nuclear-weapon￾free zone as no more than an act that “sets the seal on a durable peace” is not a vision that is shared by Egypt. A Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone is in and of itself an important confidence-building measure and an act of political reconciliation. Furthermore, arguing that fully fledged relations of peace must exist before talks on such a zone can commence, while at the same time persisting to maintain a nuclear option, clearly appear as two mutually exclusive and contradictory arguments. In a region as volatile as the Middle East no solid and durable peace can be achieved while a nuclear threat continues to loom over the region. 7. Egypt will continue to pursue the objective of establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East at the earliest time and will, in that context, continue to seek the support of regional and extraregional States. Furthermore, Egypt will continue its endeavours to realize the objective of establishing such a zone based on the outcome of the 2000 Review Conference. It will also pursue its April 1990 initiative for the establishment, in the Middle East, of a zone free from all weapons of mass destruction. In its endeavours, it will continue to seek the support of the international community and of all those who are committed to ridding the world, at both the regional and the global level, of the threat of nuclear weapons. Mexico [Original: Spanish] [7 June 2001] 1. Mexico considers that the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones is an effective parallel way strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime. It noted with interest that the sixth Review Conference of the Parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty invited States, in particular in the Middle East, to reaffirm their support for practical steps towards the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in that region. 2. The initiative on the establishment of a nuclear￾weapon-free zone in the Middle East is in line with article VII of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which recognizes the right of States to conclude regional treaties in order to assure the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories. The establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones ensures the elimination of the threat that such devices represent and helps to preserve international peace and security on a trustworthy basis, especially in regions where tension exists. 3. At the 1995 Review and Extension Conference, Mexico endorsed the need for specific steps to ensure the full implementation of the provisions of the resolution on the Middle East. Implementation of that resolution is a pressing commitment of the States parties to the Treaty and accordingly the Final Document of the sixth Review Conference notes that the broadening and the establishment of nuclear￾weapon-free zones on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at, especially in zones of tension such as the Middle East, represent a significant contribution towards a world free of nuclear weapons. 4. Mexico welcomes the fact that the resolution on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East was adopted unanimously. Syrian Arab Republic [Original: Arabic] [15 May 2001] 1. The Syrian Arab Republic has always affirmed its strong commitment to the establishment of a nuclear￾weapon-free zone in the Middle East. It expresses its deep concern at the fact that Israel represents an insurmountable obstacle preventing the establishment of such a zone by its refusal to accede to the Non￾Proliferation Treaty. It still maintains that refusal despite the international community’s repeated admonition that its intransigent position is causing great damage to the credibility and universality of the Treaty and that it is, in practice, preventing the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East regardless of the good faith of the other parties involved and of the various formulas proposed. 2. The Syrian Arab Republic is of the view that measures for the establishment of the nuclear-weapon￾free zone in the Middle East for which the relevant United Nations resolutions have called will require: (a) That Israel, the only country in the region that possesses nuclear installations and a nuclear stockpile, should accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, place all of its nuclear installations under the comprehensive safeguards regime of IAEA and eliminate its entire stockpile of nuclear weapons, all as an indispensable desideratum for the establishment of the zone; (b) That the United Nations provide the proper framework for serious talks to facilitate joint action by the countries concerned in the Middle East for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone. Notes 1 NPT/CONF.2000/28 (Parts I and II). 2 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 729, No. 10485. 3 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 42 (A/54/42), annex I, sect. C. 4 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty￾seventh Session, Supplement No. 27 (A/47/27), appendix I. 5 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 634, No. 9068.

593552

THIRD REVIEW CONFERENCE OF THE STATES PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF CERTAIN CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS WHICH MAY BE DEEMED TO BE EXCESSIVELY INJURIOUS OR TO HAVE INDISCRIMINATE EFFECTS CCW/CONF.III/SR.1 25 September 2007 ENGLISH Original: FRENCH Geneva, 7-17 November 2006 SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 1st MEETING Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Tuesday, 7 November 2006, at 10.15 a.m. Temporary President: Mr. CAUGHLEY (Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director of the Geneva Branch of the Department for Disarmament Affairs) President: Mr. RIVASSEAU (France) later: Mr. DRAGANOV (Bulgaria) CONTENTS OPENING OF THE THIRD REVIEW CONFERENCE CONFIRMATION OF THE NOMINATION OF THE PRESIDENT-DESIGNATE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ADOPTION OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE CONFIRMATION OF THE NOMINATION OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE CONFERENCE This record is subject to correction. Corrections 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 Editing Unit, room E.4108, Palais des Nations, Geneva. Any corrections to the records of the meetings of the Conference will be consolidated in a single corrigendum, to be issued shortly after the end of the Conference. GE.07-60005 (E) 100907 250907 CONTENTS (continued) ORGANIZATION OF WORK, INCLUDING THAT OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE CONFERENCE ELECTION OF VICE-PRESIDENTS OF THE REVIEW CONFERENCE, CHAIRPERSONS AND VICE-CHAIRPERSONS OF THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE, THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE AND THE MAIN COMMITTEES APPOINTMENT OF THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE MESSAGE FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS SUBMISSION OF THE REPORT OF THE GROUP OF GOVERNMENTAL EXPERTS GENERAL EXCHANGE OF VIEWS The meeting was called to order at 10.15 a.m. OPENING OF THE THIRD REVIEW CONFERENCE (item 1 of the provisional agenda) 1. The TEMPORARY PRESIDENT, acting on behalf of the United Nations Secretary-General, who is the depositary of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects and the protocols annexed thereto, called to order the Third Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention. He pointed out that, in view of the key importance of the Convention in reducing unnecessary suffering and protecting innocent lives during and after conflicts, the first and second Review Conferences had agreed that future conferences should be held more often. At their meeting in 2005, the States parties had decided that the Third Conference would be convened from 7 to 17 November 2006 in Geneva, and that all necessary preparations for the Conference would be undertaken within the framework of the existing Group of Governmental Experts (CCW/MSP/2005/2, paras. 26 and 27). CONFIRMATION OF THE NOMINATION OF THE PRESIDENT-DESIGNATE (item 2 of the provisional agenda) 2. The TEMPORARY PRESIDENT pointed out that, in accordance with rule 6 of the draft rules of procedure (CCW/CONF.III/3), the Conference should elect a President from among the States parties participating in the Conference. At their meeting in 2005, the States parties had decided to designate Ambassador François Rivasseau of France as President of the Third Review Conference (CCW/MSP/2005/2, para. 38). He understood that the Conference wished to confirm the nomination of Mr. Rivasseau. 3. Mr. Rivasseau (France) was elected President of the Conference by acclamation. 4. Mr. Rivasseau (France) took the Chair. 5. The PRESIDENT said that it was an honour for France and for himself to chair the Third Conference to review the Convention, an honour which was all the greater as the Conference was taking place at an extremely sensitive time, when the eyes of the world community were turned towards the Conference because of a difficult international situation. He was sure that all the delegations present were aware of the importance of the tasks ahead of them. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA (item 3 of the provisional agenda) (CCW/CONF.III/1) 6. The PRESIDENT said he understood that the Conference wished to adopt the provisional agenda issued under the symbol CCW/CONF.III/1, which had been approved by the Group of Governmental Experts at its thirteenth session. 7. The agenda was adopted. ADOPTION OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE (agenda item 4) (CCW/CONF.III/3) 8. The PRESIDENT said that the Group of Governmental Experts had agreed at its thirteenth session to recommend to the Third Review Conference the rules of procedure which had been applied during the first and second Conferences, except for the suggestion that two Main Committees should be set up instead of three. Rule 35 of the draft rulesof procedure issued under the symbol CCW/CONF.III/3 had been adjusted accordingly. He said that an error in rule 50 of the draft rules of procedure should be corrected: the words “rules 45 to 47” should be replaced by “rules 46 to 48”. In accordance with the rules of procedure, the provisions relating to observers from intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations would be applied in the same manner as for the proceedings of the Group of Governmental Experts. Concerning rule 34 of the rules of procedure, it was to be noted that the High Contracting Parties had conducted their deliberations and negotiations on the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto on the basis of consensus, and had not taken any decision by vote. 9. The rules of procedure were adopted as orally amended. CONFIRMATION OF THE NOMINATION OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE CONFERENCE (agenda item 5) 10. The PRESIDENT said that, at the last meeting of its thirteenth session, on 10 March 2006, the Group of Governmental Experts, noting that the Secretary-General of the United Nations had designated Mr. Peter Kolarov, Political Affairs Officer in the Geneva Branch of the Department for Disarmament Affairs, to serve as provisional Secretary-General of the Conference, had decided to approve the designation, on the understanding that Mr. Kolarov would perform the function of provisional Secretary-General until the opening of the Conference, at which time his nomination would need to be confirmed. He understood that it was the wish of the Conference to confirm Mr. Kolarov in that office. 11. The designation of Mr. Kolarov as Secretary-General of the Conference was confirmed. ORGANIZATION OF WORK, INCLUDING THAT OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE CONFERENCE (agenda item 6) (CCW/CONF.III/2, 4, 5 and 7/Add.4 and Add.5) 12. The PRESIDENT said that, in accordance with the rules of procedure it had just adopted on the recommendation of the Group of Governmental Experts, the Conference was to set up a General Committee, two Main Committees, a Drafting Committee and a Credentials Committee. The Group of Governmental Experts had also recommended that agenda items 12 and 13 should be assigned to Main Committee I and item 14 to Main Committee II. The Group had further drawn up and recommended provisional agendas (CCW/CONF.III/4 and 5) and programmes of work (CCW/CONF.III/Add.4 and Add.5) for the two Main Committees. Lastly, he drew the delegations’ attention to the provisions of rules 44 and 45 of the rules of procedure, concerning the public nature of the proceedings. If there was no objection, he would take it that the Conference endorsed the recommendations of the Group of Governmental Experts on all those points. 13. It was so decided. 14. The PRESIDENT drew delegations’ attention to the provisional programme of work for the Conference, which had been issued under the symbol CCW/CONF.III/2, pointing out that the programme, which was indicative in nature, could be modified in the light of progress in the proceedings. He encouraged delegations to make the most of the time available and agree to move on directly with the programme of work if they completed consideration of a particular item more rapidly than expected. He hoped that the texts already approved in the Group of Governmental Experts, concerning in particular a plan of action to promote the universality of the Conference, the establishment of a sponsorship programme, the draft final document of the Conference and the draft declaration to be issued by the Conference on the occasion of the entry into force of Protocol V, would not give rise to lengthy discussions and could be speedily forwarded by the Main Committees to the Drafting Committee. It was his intention to hold brief plenary sessions when necessary to take stock of progress in the work of the Main Committees. If there was no objection, he would take it that, in the light of the information he had just outlined and the fact that the programme of work could be modified as needed, the Conference approved the provisional programme of work issued under the symbol CCW/CONF.III/2. 15. It was so decided. ELECTION OF VICE-PRESIDENTS OF THE REVIEW CONFERENCE, CHAIRPERSONS AND VICE-CHAIRPERSONS OF THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE, THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE AND THE MAIN COMMITTEES (agenda item 7) 16. The PRESIDENT said that, in accordance with rule 6 of the rules of procedure, the Conference was to elect from among the States parties participating in the Conference 10 Vice-Presidents of the Conference, as well as the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for each of the two Main Committees, the Drafting Committee and the Credentials Committee. Those officers should be selected in such a way as to ensure the representative character of the General Committee of the Conference provided for under rule 10. 17. The representatives of the following States were candidates for the 10 posts of Vice-President of the Conference: Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Morocco, Philippines, Poland and Switzerland. 18. He had received the following nominations for the offices of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the various subsidiary bodies: Mr. Borisovas (Latvia) and Ms. Baker (United States of America) as Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, respectively, of Main Committee I; Mr. da Rocha Paranhos (Brazil) and Mr. Novokhatskiy (Russian Federation) as Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, respectively, of Main Committee II; Mr. Prasad (India) and Mr. Levanon (Israel) as Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, respectively, of the Drafting Committee; lastly, Mr. Markotić (Croatia) and Mr. Ochoa (Mexico) as Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, respectively, of the Credentials Committee. 19. These candidates were elected to the posts in question by acclamation. APPOINTMENT OF THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE (agenda item 8) 20. The PRESIDENT said that, in accordance with rule 4 of the rules of procedure, the Credentials Committee should be composed of five members elected by the Conference on the proposal of the President. As the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Committee had just been elected, they proposed Australia, Slovakia and South Africa to fill the three remaining posts. 21. Australia, Slovakia and South Africa were elected as members of the Credentials Committee by acclamation. MESSAGE FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS (agenda item 9) 22. At the President’s invitation, Mr. CAUGHLEY (Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director of the Geneva Branch of the Department for Disarmament Affairs) read out a message addressed to the Third Review Conference by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. In the message, the Secretary-General, noting that the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons still had only 100 States parties, welcomed the steps expected to be taken at the Third Review Conference to encourage other States to accede to it, especially those among the least developed or developing countries which were affected by the problem of mines and explosive remnants of war. He also welcomed the imminent entry into force of Protocol V on explosive remnants of war. 23. Highlighting the effects of cluster munitions during and after armed conflicts, the Secretary-General urged the States parties to devise norms that would immediately reduce and ultimately eliminate the horrendous impact of those weapons in humanitarian and economic terms. In particular, he called on them to declare a freeze on the use of cluster munitions against military assets located in or near populated areas - an action which was in any event illegal under international humanitarian law - and on the transfer of such munitions which were known to be unreliable and inaccurate. In fact, technical requirements should be established for any new weapons system so that the risk it posed to civilian populations could be reduced. 24. The Secretary-General noted with satisfaction that the States parties intended to continue their efforts to prevent the loss of human life caused by mines other than anti-personnel mines. He urged them to articulate strong legal commitments that would reinforce the humanitarian norms laid down in the Convention. He also noted with satisfaction that the States parties were making progress in devising an effective cooperation and compliance mechanism which would fully apply to the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto. SUBMISSION OF THE REPORT OF THE GROUP OF GOVERNMENTAL EXPERTS (agenda item 10) (CCW/CONF.III/7 and Add.1 to 8) 25. The PRESIDENT, introducing the report of the Group of Governmental Experts (CCW/CONF.III/7 and Add.1 to 8), said that the annexes to the report had been issued in the form of addenda for technical reasons, which had strictly no effect on their status. The Group had held three sessions in 2006, from 6 to 10 March, from 19 to 23 June and from 28 August to 6 September, as well as informal consultations. It had settled all the procedural and substantive issues required to enable the Third Review Conference to begin its work; in particular, it had approved and recommended a set of draft rules of procedure for the Conference, a provisional agenda and programme of work for the Conference and the two Main Committees, as well as a draft final document and a draft declaration to be issued by the Conference on the occasion of the entry into force of Protocol V relating to explosive remnants of war. 26. The Group of Governmental Experts had examined proposals relating to compliance with the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto, explosive remnants of war, mines other than anti-personnel mines, a sponsorship programme and the universalization of the Convention and its Protocols. The Group had agreed on a plan of action to promote the universalization of the Convention and a draft decision relating to the establishment of a sponsorship programme under the Convention. As for the first three issues - explosive remnants of war, mines other than anti-personnel mines and compliance - no consensus had emerged, although positions had moved markedly closer. He considered that the reports on those three issues, which appeared in addenda to the Group’s progress report, properly reflected the state of progress in the proceedings, and that the Conference could consider those issues under agenda items 13, 14 and 18 taking into account all the statements made and all the working papers and other documents presented. 27. Noting that the Group of Governmental Experts had taken a large number of its decisions by consensus, in a climate of constructive cooperation, and that many documents had been presented, demonstrating the genuine commitment and serious efforts of all the participants, he considered that the Group’s proceedings constituted a good starting point for what was to be undertaken at the Third Review Conference and augured well for the conduct of the Conference. The coordinators of the Group of Governmental Experts on the issues of explosive remnants of war and mines other than anti-personnel mines, as well as the Friend of the President of the Group on the issue of compliance, had agreed to serve as his Friends for the same issues during the Review Conference. GENERAL EXCHANGE OF VIEWS (agenda item 11) 28. Mr. KAHILUOTO (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, as well as the acceding countries Bulgaria and Romania, the candidate countries Croatia and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the countries of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia, as well as Liechtenstein, Ukraine and Moldova, said that the right of parties to an armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare was not unlimited. That was a fundamental rule on which the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Protocols annexed thereto drew in prohibiting or restricting the use of certain specific types of weapons or munitions. The European Union viewed the prohibitions and restrictions imposed by those instruments as establishing minimum standards applicable in all situations of armed conflict, and so called upon all States that had not yet done so to ratify or accede to the Convention and its Protocols, including amended article 1 of the Convention. It unreservedly supported the plan of action for the universalization of those instruments which was to be adopted at the Third Review Conference. 29. At the first two Conferences held to review the Convention, the States parties had extended the scope of the regime established by the Convention, strengthened the rules relating to mines, booby-traps and other devices spelled out in Protocol II and adopted two new protocols, one on blinding laser weapons and the other on explosive remnants of war, thus demonstrating that it was possible to adapt the Convention to advances in weapons technology and developments in the nature and conduct of armed conflict. That said, it was important that any new instrument created under the Convention should meet the general objective of strengthening international humanitarian law and should be designed to be effective in the field. A protocol on mines other than anti-personnel mines would serve that very purpose, but the European Union was concerned that some States parties were apparently still not able to subscribe to an agreement on a draft protocol. 30. At the Third Review Conference, the States parties should reaffirm the importance of the principles agreed and commitments made at the previous conferences and take the opportunity to review and clarify the obligations entered into under the regime established by the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto, but also to strengthen their implementation, and to exchange experience relating to national legislation, cooperation and assistance, the dissemination of the Convention and legal reviews of new weapons. The European Union welcomed the proposal put forward by the President on the issue of compliance and supported the draft final document provisionally approved by the Group of Governmental Experts. 31. In addition to the issues of mines other than anti-personnel mines and compliance, the European Union wished to highlight the issue of explosive remnants of war: the disproportionate impact on the civilian population of munitions, including submunitions, that might become explosive remnants of war, not to mention the huge burden that could arise from the need for their clearance, meant that each of the States parties must commit itself to resolving that issue urgently. They should work for the universalization of Protocol V and its expeditious and effective implementation. The European Union encouraged the States parties to participate in the informal consultations on that subject which would be organized on the margins of the Third Review Conference. It was in favour of further work on the issue beyond the Third Review Conference, in accordance with the mandate it had submitted at the fifteenth session of the Group of Governmental Experts. It would be important to pursue work on the issue beyond the Conference by focusing more on clarifying the existing obligations, strengthening their implementation and promoting the universality of the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto. 32. Ms. MILLAR (Australia) pointed out that, since the Second Review Conference, the States parties had been dedicating themselves to examining the issue of mines other than anti-personnel mines and that of explosive remnants of war. Concerning mines other than anti-personnel mines, the studies and information put before the Group of Governmental Experts by Governments and non-governmental organizations had provided irrefutable evidence that such weapons, when undetectable and persistent, threatened the lives of both civilians and humanitarian workers and impeded development long after hostilities, when they had ceased to have any military utility. More effective restrictions must be placed on the use of mines other than anti-personnel mines. Ideally, the States parties, at the present Review Conference, should finalize a legally binding protocol on the issue; to make a practical difference on the ground, the protocol must include measures on detectability and the active life of mines, and strengthen existing international law. 33. As for the question of explosive remnants of war, Protocol V on the subject, which would enter into force on the following 12 November, could greatly alleviate the problems of contamination by explosive remnants of war through clearance, cooperation and information exchange measures. The technical annex on preventive measures should also greatly help to reduce the risk that weapons might become explosive remnants of war. Australia was on the point of ratifying the Protocol and had already begun to provide assistance for decontamination. That said, more could be done: while the existing rules of international humanitarian law were specific and comprehensive enough to make it possible to curb the problem, the fact remained that they could be better implemented, as the report prepared by Professor McCormack showed. Further work was needed on examining those rules, including with regard to targeting, and on further studying the possibility of introducing technical preventive measures as well as a system of confidence-building measures on destruction of old or outmoded weapons. In that spirit, Australia endorsed the idea of continuation of the current mandate of the Group of Governmental Experts. 34. Australia had always supported the idea of devising a compliance mechanism for the Convention and all the Protocols annexed to it, inspired by the model established by amended Protocol II and following a clear, consistent and effective approach at low cost. That said, it was also ready to accept the proposal made to the Third Review Conference by the President. Australia welcomed the President’s initiative in producing a plan of action to promote the universality of the Convention, as well as a sponsorship programme under the Convention. In the Asia-Pacific region there were many countries affected by the problem of explosive remnants of war that could benefit from participating in the work carried out under the Convention and receiving assistance thereby. A sponsorship programme would be particularly useful in the context of Protocol V. 35. Mr. MACKAY (New Zealand) said that the States parties to the Convention had achieved constructive results after their work over the past five years. Most importantly, they had adopted Protocol V on explosive remnants of war, whose entry into force was imminent and which New Zealand, for its part, planned to ratify before the end of 2006. Yet progress remained to be made in many areas, particularly that of cluster munitions. The delegation of New Zealand fully endorsed the call made by the United Nations Secretary-General for States to take steps in relation to such weapons without further delay. They should negotiate a legally binding instrument that would meaningfully address the humanitarian consequences of the use of cluster munitions, thereby demonstrating that the Convention and its Protocols offered, in terms of international humanitarian law, the means of responding to the contemporary concerns of the international community. In the view of the delegation of New Zealand, specific international regulations with regard to cluster munitions should relate principally to the following elements: the persistent nature of failed cluster munitions, prohibition of the use of such munitions within areas with concentrated civilian populations, prohibition of indiscriminate attacks of a nature to strike combatants and civilians alike, prohibition of the use of such weapons in circumstances in which they were likely to cause disproportionate loss of human life among the civilian population and excessive damage to civilian objects, and lastly, the potential for increased proliferation, retention or use of stocks of outmoded cluster munitions. 36. The issue of mines other than anti-personnel mines was also an issue which the Review Conference should address as a matter of priority. New Zealand would welcome the adoption of an instrument on the issue which would have the effect of genuinely strengthening existing international humanitarian law. That said, it feared that an instrument of which some key provisions relating to the detectability and active life of the mines in question were optional would have the effect of undermining international humanitarian law rather than strengthening it. 37. Mr. GRÖNING (Germany) said that his country fully subscribed to thestatement made by the representative of Finland on behalf of the European Union. He wished very particularly to draw delegations’ attention to three issues, firstly that of explosive remnants of war: Protocol V, which Germany had been the fifth State to ratify, was a major step, which nevertheless was not yet sufficient to make it possible to settle all the aspects of the problem, especially that of cluster munitions, which had an excessive impact on the civilian population. Throughout the year 2006, the German delegation had sought to prompt a responsible and transparent discussion on cluster munitions within the framework of the proceedings of the Group of Governmental Experts. The previous September it had submitted a text which set out the elements of an agreement among the States parties (CCW/GGE/XV/WG.1/WP.3), in order that it should be developed further, in particular by devising provisions aimed at significantly reducing the dud rate which led to the creation of explosive remnants, as well as restrictions on the use of cluster munitions within or near populated areas. The German armed forces, for their part, had phased out all the cluster munitions they had stockpiled whose failure rate was over 1 per cent. 38. Secondly, regarding mines other than anti-personnel mines, the draft instrument which had been drawn up on that subject was firmly supported not only by the European Union but also by the vast majority of States, and it should be finalized as quickly as possible. In the view of the German delegation, the provisions of such an instrument which dealt with the detectability and active life of munitions should be legally binding in nature, as what was involved was better protection of the civilian population. 39. Thirdly, regarding blinding laser weapons, the German delegation was of the view that, in view of the evolution of such weapons during the decade which had followed the entry into force of Protocol IV, it was time to review the implementation of that important instrument and consider improving it, in particular by drawing up precautions which could possibly be taken in the area of the design of military laser systems. It was important to find solutions in those three areas, and hence the German delegation hoped that the Third Review Conference would renew the mandate of the Group of Governmental Experts and that the States parties would continue to meet as frequently as in the past. 40. Mr. CHENG (China) said that substantial progress had been made where the Convention was concerned during the period which had followed the last Review Conference, particularly as regards the universalization of the instrument and the Protocols annexed to it. In addition, the scope of the Convention and the Protocols had been extended to armed conflicts of a non-international character, while the Protocol relating to explosive remnants of war had enriched the humanitarian rules laid down in the Convention. The Group of Governmental Experts had held in-depth discussions on the issues of anti-vehicle landmines, a compliance mechanism and a sponsorship programme, discussions which presaged the real possibility of agreement on certain points. In China’s view, it was now important to promote the universalization of the Convention, including amended article 1, as well as the Protocols annexed thereto, and to work for the effective application of all those instruments. China placed great hopes in the plan of action which was scheduled for adoption for that purpose at the present Review Conference. As for China, it had yet to ratify Protocol V relating to explosive remnants of war; it had striven to fulfil the obligations it bore under the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto, and had actively participated in international cooperation activities carried out in the framework of the Convention. 41. Concerning the issue of explosive remnants of war, China welcomed the imminent entry into force of Protocol V, which made a significant contribution at the international level to arms control and the protection of non-combatants. Earnest implementation of the provisions of the Protocol, including generic preventive measures, would help to resolve the problem posed by such remnants. Concerning anti-vehicle mines, considerable progress had been achieved in the Group of Governmental Experts over the past five years on that issue, although divergent views remained on certain aspects. At the present stage, delegations should make a special effort to find a consensus solution which struck a balance between military requirements and humanitarian concerns, took into consideration the economic and technological capabilities of different countries, proposed a different approach for anti-vehicle mines, which did not have the same military value or raise the same humanitarian concerns as anti-personnel mines, and, lastly, was realistic and feasible. 42. Concerning compliance, China favoured the idea of establishing for all of the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto a mechanism based on the one used in amended Protocol II, which it regarded as the most realistic and feasible solution. Moreover, the establishment of a sponsorship programme would greatly enhance the influence of the Convention and its Protocols, as well as the universality and implementation of those instruments. 43. Mr. CHANG (Republic of Korea), noting that, since its adoption in 1980, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons had been playing a paramount role in realizing the principles of international humanitarian law, said that the last two Review Conferences had made it possible to adopt measures which had truly added to the authority and relevance of the Convention. At the present Review Conference, the delegations would be invited to adopt a plan of action to promote the universality of the Convention and establish a sponsorship programme. They might perhaps reach agreement on an optional mechanism to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols, which, in the view of the delegation of the Republic of Korea, would contribute to more effective implementation of those instruments. 44. It was regrettable that, despite all the work devoted to it by the Group of Governmental Experts, it was unlikely that the Review Conference would be able to adopt a protocol on mines other than anti-personnel mines. The Republic of Korea, for its part, would prefer such a protocol to be legally binding, so that the impact of the mines in question could be combated effectively. However, in the interests of a possible consensus, it would be ready to consider the solution proposed at the last session of the Group of Governmental Experts, under which States would be free to decide whether the application of certain provisions would be binding or optional. 45. Welcoming the forthcoming entry into force of Protocol V on explosive remnants of war, he said that his country planned to ratify that instrument as soon as possible. Delegations should now focus their deliberations on ways and means available to strictly apply the generic preventive measures set out in the Protocol. The Working Group on Explosive Remnants of War had made good progress on the issue, and therefore its mandate should be extended so that it could complete its work. 46. Mr. MACEDO (Mexico) expressed the hope that the States parties to the Convention would demonstrate, at the present Review Conference, that they were capable of continuing to develop and codify international humanitarian law relating to certain conventional weapons and that they possessed the political will required to do so. The protection of civilian populations before, during and after armed conflicts was ultimately at stake. 47. It was in that spirit that Mexico and certain countries had put before the Conference for consideration a draft mandate for the negotiation of a legally binding instrument on cluster munitions. Those countries had observed that the existing rules of international humanitarian law were not adequate to minimize the risk posed by the use of such munitions for the civilian population, owing to their lack of precision and a high dud rate. Consequently, they considered that their use should be strictly regulated initially and the use of certain types of such weapons prohibited outright. In the same spirit, Mexico welcomed the forthcoming entry into force of Protocol V on explosive remnants of war. As for mines other than anti-personnel mines, Mexico, while favouring a complete ban on that type of mine, was aware that a number of delegations did not share that view. At all events, it could not join a consensus on an instrument which did not have the effect of strengthening and supplementing the provisions of amended Protocol II. 48. As regards the issue of a mechanism for verification of compliance with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto, Mexico viewed the draft decision presented by the President as a first step in the right direction and was of the opinion that work on the topic should be continued after the Review Conference. The sponsorship programme which was proposed broadly met the concerns raised by the low level of participation in the work carried out in the framework of the Convention by least developed or developing States parties. Mexico was ready to support all efforts to ensure the universal application of the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto, a goal pursued by the plan of action which was proposed for adoption by the Conference. 49. Mr. ANTONOV (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation had taken part in the drafting of the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto, and that it had been among the first States to ratify those instruments. It had become a party to amended Protocol II in December 2004 and, in October 2006, the President of the Russian Federation had signed the law adopting the amendment to article 1 of the Convention. The country was preparing to ratify Protocol V. 50. He expressed appreciation to the delegations which had put forward proposals designed to solve the complex and urgent problems which were related to the Convention. He considered that it was important to analyse those proposals in terms of the implications of their implementation. The main criteria governing that analysis should be the balance that they would strike between humanitarian, military and economic interests, the practical scope for the fulfilment of the obligations that would be entered into and the focusing of the proposals on the settlement of actual rather than imaginary humanitarian problems, in addition to the fact that the proposed solutions should be consensual, otherwise the Convention itself and its universalization would suffer. 51. Overall, the Russian Federation was satisfied by the work accomplished by the Group of Governmental Experts over the past five years, which had made it possible to identify the problems more clearly and make substantial progress in certain areas. That was the case for the question of mines other than anti-personnel mines. The stakes in that regard were very high, at least in the case of the Russian Federation, which largely relied on such mines for its defence. He pointed out in that regard that it was not possible to apply directly to mines other than anti-personnel mines the technical requirements laid down as regards anti-personnel mines because the functions of the two types were different. In addition, it had yet to be shown that mines other than anti-personnel mines posed a real danger to civilian populations. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that mines must be detectable after conflicts, and not during hostilities, and so it was important to modernize mine detection devices rather than seeking to modify mine design. Lastly, it was necessary to be aware that it was difficult to draw up a single set of rules regarding the active life of remotely delivered mines other than anti-personnel mines, since that depended on circumstances. An added fact was that mines of types which were highly advanced would make developing countries dependent on output from technologically advanced countries and would oblige them to earmark for that purpose resources which were much needed for their development. In order to resolve the humanitarian problems posed by mines other than anti-personnel mines while maintaining their military utility, it would be better for the States parties to focus their efforts on international cooperation, assistance for humanitarian demining, assistance to the population during the post-conflict period, regulation of the use of mines of that type and the development of transparency measures. All the technical parameters set for such mines should be for optional application. As regards explosive remnants of war, the Russian Federation could not agree to the restriction or prohibition of munitions deemed to be very dangerous in the absence of evidence to support such a claim. In that regard, Protocol V furnished an example of balanced interests and a compromise solution. 52. With regard to the mechanism which was to be set up to ensure compliance with the provisions, the Russian Federation continued to support the proposal put forward by South Africa. It noted with satisfaction that the draft decision drawn up by the President was essentially policy-oriented; it planned to study more closely the idea of establishing a pool of experts. Before taking any decision in that regard, it was important to clarify the underpinnings of the proposal fully and ensure that it would not give rise to a politicization of the issues under consideration or lead to unjustified financial implications. The Russian Federation would be ready to support the programme of action to promote the universality of the Convention, the smooth implementation of which would be decisive for the authority of the Convention, and also the sponsorship programme, provided that it was funded from voluntary contributions and did not lead to unnecessary bureaucratic machinery. He trusted that the constructive climate which had always marked the work carried out in the framework of the Convention would continue during the Review Conference, so that it would be possible to study all the aspects of the problems under consideration and their consequences for the national security of the States parties. It was his hope that the final declaration of the Conference would sum up in a balanced manner the implementation of the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto and would contain clear recommendations on ways and means of ensuring the universality of those instruments and their effectiveness. 53. Mr. MARTABIT (Chile) referred to the principles of international humanitarian law which were set out in the preamble to the Convention. Noting the work carried out in the framework of the Group of Governmental Experts relating to the question of mines other than anti-personnel mines and that of explosive remnants of war, he said that the present Review Conference should serve as an occasion to make further progress in those two areas, with the aim of securing practical results. As for the question of mines other than anti-personnel mines, which was centred on improving the living conditions of the civilian population and humanitarian deminers during and after hostilities, what was needed, after four years of discussions during which the States parties had addressed the most important elements of the issue, including the detectability and active life of such devices, was to adopt a mandate for further work which would incorporate the various viewpoints expressed and make it possible to move forward in studying an instrument which would settle that important question and provide for the essential cooperation and assistance activities. As regards explosive remnants of war and international humanitarian law, he favoured continuation of the three-stage initiative outlined by the coordinator on the issue in March 2004, as well as study of the McCormack report, in particular the recommendations that appeared in it which could help to lessen the humanitarian impact of such explosive remnants. 54. Concerning compliance, the Chilean delegation favoured the establishment, for that purpose, of a mechanism which would apply to the Convention and to all the Protocols annexed thereto. Noting the imminent entry into force of Protocol V on explosive remnants of war, Chile was convinced that the universalization and application of that instrument would offer useful means of combating the many consequences of conflicts. It supported the draft plan of action to promote the universality of the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto, proposed by the Group of Governmental Experts. As for the sponsorship programme which the President of the Conference proposed to institute, Chile hoped that that programme, which was indeed useful, would be governed by the same principles as those which had made a success of the mechanism set up in the framework of the Ottawa Convention, namely financing through voluntary contributions, facilitation of appropriate regional representation and assistance for the purpose of better fulfilment of all the obligations entered into by the States parties. 55. For its part, the Chilean Government had initiated the procedure for the ratification of Protocol V and the incorporation of amended article 1 of the Convention into domestic law. It wished to pay tribute to the contribution made by the United Nations agencies, other international organizations, regional organizations and the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, as well as non-governmental organizations, to the strengthening of international cooperation in the application of the prohibitions and restrictions laid down by the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto. It counted on broad and effective participation by civil society in the Conference held to review a convention which was focused both on disarmament and on humanitarian law. 56. Mr. KHAN (Pakistan), noting that the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, as conceived, made it possible to address a wide range of humanitarian issues posed by a variety of conventional weapons and therefore constituted an important instrument amongst the many conventions and treaties relating to arms control, considered that theConvention and its four Protocols were working effectively and that its provisions should be applied strictly because the aim was to reduce the sufferings of human beings in conflicts. It was equally important to universalize those instruments, and the draft plan of action presented to the Review Conference for consideration should contribute to the attainment of that goal. Protocol V on explosive remnants of war, which would shortly enter into force, would expand the scope of the Convention and enhance its significance. The discussions which had taken place in the Working Group on the question of explosive remnants of war had been very useful - the recommendations made by Professor McCormack in his report deserved further study. In that regard, the States parties should strive to identify points of convergence while continuing their deliberations on contentious issues and avoid rushing to adopt solutions that were neither workable nor achievable. 57. In relation to the question of anti-vehicle mines, he noted that stark divergences remained on key issues, beginning with the definition of that expression, which would define the future scope and parameters of the deliberations among the States parties. Noting that detectability and active life were issues which related to the security of States, while the non-detectability and persistence of anti-vehicle mines were two elements of critical importance in the defensive strategy of certain countries, he referred to the working paper he had presented to the fifteenth session of the Group of Governmental Experts, which set out the rationale of the position adopted by his country on the question (CCW/GGE/XV/WG.2/WP.2). 58. As for the question of a compliance mechanism, the proposed draft needed further work, and in particular should be based on the idea that such a mechanism should remain optional, non-intrusive and impartial. He also expressed the hope that the Review Conference would adopt the draft decision relating to the establishment of a sponsorship programme. Noting that a number of proposals for future work by the States parties had been submitted for endorsement by the Review Conference, he urged States not to forget that the aim was to strengthen the regime established by the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto and make it more effective and to avoid any additions and amendments which would slow down or undercut their efforts to universalize those instruments. 59. Mr. STREULI (Switzerland) noted that, by general agreement, the Convention was an adaptable instrument and could lead to the formulation of new rules so as to minimize the harmful effects which certain weapons had on the civilian population during conflicts while taking into consideration the military interests of States. In that spirit, Switzerland had, even before the Second Review Conference, in 2001, taken the initiative to propose the adoption of international regulations on submunitions, or cluster munitions: the purpose was to remedy the humanitarian problems posed by that type of munition which had already been reported at that time, but also to establish relevant rules before those munitions were too widely used. The solution advocated by Switzerland was based in particular on the introduction of technical improvements designed to reduce the number of duds in the field, the regulation of transfers and the destruction of stocks of submunitions which did not meet the reliability criteria. That initiative had not succeeded, as the States parties had preferred to focus their efforts on post-conflict remedial measures concerning all unexploded munitions, a much more ambitious holistic approach, which had culminated in the adoption of Protocol V in 2001. The discussions on explosive remnants of war held in the interim had still not led to regulation of munitions, including submunitions, which might become explosive remnants of war, an idea to which Switzerland remained firmly committed. It therefore favoured the idea of setting up a working group specifically to negotiate a legally binding instrument on cluster munitions, which continued to cause the most serious humanitarian problems, and it supported the proposed mandate proposed in document CCW/CONF.III/WP.1*. 60. Switzerland believed that it was necessary to enhance protection of the civilian population from mines other than anti-personnel mines, which operated indiscriminately. There was a need for a new instrument dealing specifically with such mines, which should clearly reinforce the achievements and the norms set out in amended Protocol II. In that regard, the Swiss delegation considered that legally binding provisions should be adopted as regards the detectability of mines other than anti-personnel mines and the limitation of their active life. 61. Concerning the establishment of a mechanism relating to compliance with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto, Switzerland had repeatedly upheld the idea of an effective and binding solution. However, it seemed that the majority of States preferred a political solution, setting out measures to promote compliance and cooperation in the implementation of the provisions. The Swiss delegation supported the draft decision relating to the establishment of a sponsorship programme within the framework of the Convention. 62. Monsignor TOMASI (Holy See) assured the States parties that the Holy See would do its utmost to ensure that the Third Conference to review the Convention achieved tangible results, in the interests of all the population groups affected by war and conflicts. The success of the Conference would be measured in terms of the impact its decisions would have on the daily lives of the persons in question. The universalization of the Convention, compliance with the obligations entered into, the sponsorship programme and the scrupulous implementation of the agreements embodied in the various Protocols annexed to the Convention should constitute not only a whole, but also a common commitment on the part of all the States parties, for, as the representative of the Holy See pointed out, in armed conflicts, with their trail of misery and suffering, there were neither winners or losers. 63. In any event, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, despite its limitations and its failures, should retain its dynamic, evolutionary and flexible nature. As new weapons were designed and produced, it was important that reflection and negotiations should keep pace with military realities, so that those new weapons complied with the criteria laid down by the Convention and its Protocols, and, where necessary, new instruments were negotiated where existing agreements proved inadequate. In that light, the Holy See welcomed the imminent entry into force of Protocol V on explosive remnants of war and considered that it was now the duty of the States parties to make that Protocol useful, effective and operational. That should not distract them from other urgent tasks: mines other than anti-personnel mines continued to pose serious humanitarian problems, and the Holy See therefore hoped that meaningful and robust agreement with a view to a new protocol on the issue would be reached at the present Review Conference. He trusted that the Review Conference would adopt a negotiating mandate on that issue, as it could not ignore such a serious problem. Pending the culmination of such negotiations in effective solutions, States should declare a moratorium on the use of cluster munitions. In the same spirit, a thorough examination of the question of laser weapons was necessary. 64. The challenges were considerable, but he was convinced that the States parties had the ability to meet them as long as they had the political will required and took into consideration the interests of the most vulnerable population groups. The legitimate security of States could not be assured if it jeopardized the lives and future of their populations. Even as a last resort, armed conflicts constituted failure, and it was necessary to avoid compounding failure with irreparable consequences. 65. Mr. Draganov (Bulgaria) took the Chair. 66. Mr. PRASAD (India) said that his country was firmly committed to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the humanitarian principles it embodied. India had ratified the five Protocols annexed to it, as well as amended article 1 of the Convention, and had taken the necessary steps to fully implement its obligations under amended Protocol II, just as it would take all requisite measures to apply the other Protocols, including Protocol V. India favoured the adoption of the proposed plan of action to promote the universality of the Convention. It would provide support to the draft decision relating to the establishment of a sponsorship programme. 67. In India’s view, it was important to establish a mechanism to ensure compliance with the provisions. However, given the difficulties that would be raised by further amendment of the Convention in order to establish such a mechanism, the Indian delegation supported the President’s proposal for the adoption of a draft policy decision for that purpose and hoped that that draft would secure consensus. Concerning paragraph 7 of part II of the draft decision in question (CCW/CONF.III/8), it wished to point out that, as far as India was concerned, the High Contracting Parties would be required to take the steps referred to in order to fulfil their obligations under the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto only wherever necessary. 68. The forthcoming entry into force of Protocol V on explosive remnants of war would constitute a landmark in the achievement of the basic objectives of the Convention. India, which was among the 25 States that had notified the Secretary-General of their consent to be bound by the Protocol, looked forward to the declaration to be made by the Review Conference on that subject. Protocol V contained remedial measures to be taken after conflicts, including those in relation to the removal or destruction of explosive remnants of war, and above all it recognized the right of the High Contracting Parties to seek and receive assistance and required them to provide assistance in dealing with the problems posed by existing explosive remnants. Article 9 of the Protocol encouraged the High Contracting Parties to take remedial measures to minimize the occurrence of such remnants. He was confident that, when strictly implemented, Protocol V would go a long way towards mitigating the humanitarian problems associated with explosive remnants of war. After the adoption of the Protocol in November 2003, the Working Group on Explosive Remnants of War had continued its work by focusing on study of the application of the existing principles of international humanitarian law and possible preventive technical measures to improve the design of certain specific types of munitions in order to prevent them from becoming explosive remnants of war. The responses to the questionnaire on the application of the existing principles of international humanitarian law at the national level had demonstrated that the States parties were determined to fulfil their obligations under that law. The analytical report on those responses, prepared by Professor McCormack, had identified gaps in the application of that law and outlined the steps which might be taken to rectify them. India was convinced that that work would encourage the States parties to take further measures to fulfil their obligations. That said, it considered that the mechanisms set up under the Geneva Conventions and the Protocols additional to those Conventions would offer the best way to consider any proposal for elaborating on the existing principles of international humanitarian law and promoting their application. At their meetings, the military and technical experts had carried out useful work by establishing criteria for identifying types of munitions which posed special risks for humans and had considered measures focused on enhancing the reliability of those munitions. Those experts should be given an opportunity to conclude their work, in particular as regards preventive measures related to the design of munitions. 69. The Working Group on Mines Other than Anti-Personnel Mines had made significant progress in evolving the outline of a future protocol regarding the use of such mines. He hoped that it would be possible to settle the final difficulties and adopt a legally binding protocol on the issue. He would not wish the States parties to that protocol to be able to opt out of some of the obligations contained in the future instrument, as that would probably make it impossible to respond to the humanitarian concerns raised by those devices. Lastly, he paid tribute to the active, constructive and most useful participation of the International Committee of the Red Cross and non-governmental organizations in the work conducted in the framework of the Convention. 70. Mr. BETTAUER (United States of America) said he wished to reiterate the position the United States had always held concerning the regulation of conventional weapons which had indiscriminate effects or caused excessive harm: what was needed was to find the requisite balance between humanitarian concerns and States’ military interests, to clarify the facts concerning the weapons in question and to secure a consensus on the restrictions required. Protocol V was consistent with that idea. The United States considered that that instrument would go a long way towards mitigating the suffering caused by explosive remnants of war, when large numbers of countries acceded to it, applied it and followed the provisions of its technical annex relating to reliability of munitions, which should immediately reduce the number of such munitions which became explosive remnants. It was clear from the work of the States parties on the question of explosive remnants of war, the questionnaire on international humanitarian law and the analysis of responses prepared by Professor McCormack that the law applicable to explosive remnants of war was adequate. ICRC had called for the conclusion of an agreement on cluster munitions. While sharing the humanitarian concern which motivated ICRC, the United States believed that the best way to counter the effects of those weapons now consisted in applying existing international humanitarian law, before thinking of drawing up new rules. 71. For lack of consensus, it had not been possible to incorporate into amended Protocol II, during the negotiations on that subject, the restrictions relating specifically to anti-vehicle mines, or mines other than anti-personnel mines, which had been proposed by his country and Denmark. The United States nevertheless remained convinced that mines of that type genuinely posed a threat to civilians and that it was possible to regulate their use in a manner consistent with all legitimate military interests. It had therefore continued to attach priority to the question throughout the work carried out by the Group of Governmental Experts since 2001. That work had allowed an exhaustive study of all the technical and political considerations, and so the delegation of the United States considered that it was now time to bring that work to a conclusion, or to give up the quest for the adoption of an instrument regulating the use of that type of weapon. The United States, for its part, would have preferred the adoption of the 30-nation proposal, or the text proposed by the Ambassador of Finland the previous year, but was committed with other countries to finding compromises. The delegation of the United States considered that the solution currently proposed (CCW/CONF.III/7/Add.2), incorporating provisions on the detectability and active life of mines other than anti-personnel mines in optional annexes to an instrument, could secure consensus, as that would give Governments which so wished the option of considering the provisions in question as binding, while those which were not ready to accept the restrictions laid down in that field by those provisions would have the option of endorsing the other provisions of the instrument, which would, in any event, constitute a constructive contribution to the law of war. In addition, such a solution would be in keeping with the conception of the Convention, with the States parties to the latter remaining free to decide whether to become parties to the Protocols annexed thereto. The meeting rose at 1.10 p.m.

478967

UNITED NATIONS S Distr. GENERAL Security Council S/AC.26/Dec.168 (2002) 3 October 2002 Original: ENGLISH UNITED NATIONS COMPENSATION COMMISSION GOVERNING COUNCIL Decision concerning the twenty-fourth instalment of “E3” claims taken by the Governing Council of the United Nations Compensation Commission at its 122nd meeting, held on 3 October 2002 The Governing Council, Having received, in accordance with article 38 of the Provisional Rules for Claims Procedure (“the Rules”), the report and recommendations made by the panel of Commissioners concerning the twenty￾fourth instalment of “E3” claims, covering 12 claims, 1/ 1. Approves the recommendations made by the panel of Commissioners, and, accordingly, 2. Decides, pursuant to article 40 of the Rules, to approve the amounts of the recommended awards concerning the claims covered in the report. The aggregate amounts awarded per country, based on the recommendations contained in paragraph 534 of the report, are as follows: Country Number of claims recommended for payment Number of claims not recommended for payment Amount of compensation claimed (USD) Amount of compensation recommended (USD) 1/ The text of the report appears in document S/AC.26/2002/23. GE.02-64375 Page 2 Country Number of claims recommended for payment Number of claims not recommended for payment Amount of compensation claimed (USD) Amount of compensation recommended (USD) Bangladesh 1 1 24,034,180 2,561,779 Croatia 1 1 9,432,508 105,027 Egypt 1 - 4,050,146 25,000 Germany - 1 2,800,503 nil India - 1 535,121 nil Italy - 2 1,875,515 nil Pakistan 1 - 1,238,966 3,000 United Kingdom - 1 1,847,437 nil United States 1 - 108,401 40,160 Total 5 7 45,922,777 2,734,966 3. Reaffirms that when funds become available payments shall be made in accordance with decision 100 (S/AC.26/Dec.100 (2000)/Rev.1), 4. Recalls that when payments are made in accordance with decision 100, and pursuant to the terms of decision 18 (S/AC.26/Dec.18 (1994)), Governments shall distribute amounts received to the designated claimants in respect of approved awards within six months of receiving payment, and shall, not later than three months after the expiration of this time limit, provide information on such distribution, 5. Requests the Executive Secretary to provide a copy of the report to the Secretary￾General, to the Government of the Republic of Iraq and to each respective Government. -----

454736

GE.01-70823 UNITED NATIONS Distr. LIMITED FCCC/SBSTA/2001/L.8 2 November 2001 Original: ENGLISH SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE Fifteenth session Marrakesh, 29 October - 6 November 2001 Agenda item 10 OTHER MATTERS Special circumstances of the Republic of Croatia under Article 4.6 of the Convention Draft conclusions proposed by the Chairman 1. At its fourth meeting, on 31 October 2001, the SBSTA considered the request from the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to review the methodology used by the Government of Croatia to estimate its base year emissions as described in document FCCC/SBI/2001/MISC.3. It invited Parties to send their views on this matter to the secretariat by 15 February 2002 for compilation in a miscellaneous document. 2. The SBSTA also requested the secretariat to organize a review of the national communication of the Republic of Croatia at the earliest convenient time and decided to consider this matter further at its sixteenth session. - - - - -

518695

United Nations S/2004/263 Security Council Distr.: General 31 March 2004 English Original: French 04-29380 (E) 020404 020404 *0429380* Letter dated 30 March 2004 addressed to the President of the Security Council by the Secretary-General I have the honour to transmit to you attached the text of a communication dated 25 March 2004 that I received from the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (see annex). I would be grateful if you would bring this communication to the attention of the members of the Security Council. (Signed) Kofi A. Annan Annex Letter dated 25 March 2004 addressed to the Secretary-General by the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [Original: English] In accordance with Security Council resolution 1088 (1996), I attach the monthly report on the operations of the Stabilization Force (SFOR) for February 2004. I would appreciate your making this report available to the Security Council. (Signed) Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Enclosure Monthly report to the United Nations on the operations of the Stabilization Force 1. Over the reporting period (1 to 29 February 2004) there were 10,579 troops deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Security 2. The overall situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina remained stable during the period under review, with no serious incidents to report. 3. On 9 February, the High Representative, Lord Ashdown, joined by the Commander of the Stabilization Force and the United States Ambassador Clifford Bond, announced a series of actions against several individuals for their provision of material support to persons indicted for war crimes, namely Radovan Karadzic. The most prominent person on the list is former Bosnian Serb presidency member Mirko Sarovic, who resigned over the Orao affair in 2003. The list also includes the chiefs of police of Lukavica, near Sarajevo, and of Pale. The package of measures freezes the bank accounts of those on the list, dismisses them from political office and bars them from standing for office again. Attacks against SFOR and SFOR operational activities 4. There were no significant acts of violence directed against SFOR personnel over the reporting period. 5. SFOR continued to contribute to the maintenance of a safe and secure environment in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to monitor possible terrorist-related threats throughout the country. SFOR remained engaged with weapons collection, destruction and framework operations. 6. The results of weapons turned-in/collected from 1 to 29 February within the framework of Operation Harvest are: 631 small arms (rifles, pistols and revolvers, etc); 152,408 rounds of ammunition less than 20 mm; 23,158 rounds of ammunition between 20 mm and 76 mm; 284 rounds of ammunition more than 76 mm; 2,404 hand grenades; 184 mines; 63.15 kilograms of explosives; 2,951 other items (mortars and mortar rounds, rifle grenades, handmade ordnance, attack rocket, etc). Weapons collection results showed increased success. SFOR will continue its efforts in this area in order to contribute to the maintenance of sustained stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 7. However, as part of SFOR’s strategy to facilitate the transfer of responsibilities to nascent authorities, the local police will be increasingly encouraged to lead operations of execute Operation Harvest activities independently. 8. On 20 February, Operation Armadillo was transformed to Operation Armadillo 2, changing SFOR’s support for the reduction of unserviceable, redundant and obsolete Entity Armed Forces ammunition. The focus of Operation Armadillo 2 will be more on training and monitoring the efforts of the Entity Armed Forces and less on direct involvement. 9. In February 2004, the Volunteer Reserve Forces destroyed 4,539 SA-7 and 37 SA-16 man-portable anti-aircraft rockets. This initiative is a consistent step forward in defence reform. 10. On 19 February, an SFOR document examination team, supported by the Multinational Specialized Units, conducted a search of the PTT office and Sveti Jovan radio station in Pale. The focus of the operation was to investigate non￾compliance issues such as wire-tapping and surveillance of SFOR operations. The Sveti Jovan radio station is owned by Radovan Karadzic’s daughter, Sonja, and was previously inspected by SFOR on 2 January 2003. 11. The aircraft of the President of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,1 President Trajkovski, crashed on 26 February 2004 near Mostar. SFOR immediately initiated a series of measures to assist the Bosnia and Herzegovina authorities who were in overall control of the search and rescue operation. The board of inquiry into the crash has begun its work under the lead of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Department of Civil Aviation. 12. On 17 February, the Force Commander, Major General Virgil Packett, sent a letter to Dragan Covic, the Bosnian-Croat tri-Presidency member, ordering him to discharge six officers from the Bosnian-Croat component of the army of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina immediately. The officers include one major, four colonels and Brigadier-General Jozo Beljo. The six officers were dismissed because they had engaged in anti-Dayton activities as part of the Bosnian-Croat third-entry movement. Cooperation and compliance by the parties 13. On 24 February, SFOR completed an operation in order to release Zeljko Jankovic to Republika Srpska Interior Ministry Police (MUP) authorities in Bijeljina. Jankovic was detained by SFOR during another operation in Bijeljina on 28 January 2004. 14. On 2 February, at the 42nd Joint Military Commission (JMC) meeting at Camp Butmir, representatives of the Entity Armed Forces agreed to significant personnel cuts. According to the agreement, the army of the Republika Srpska (VRS) will dismiss 2,200 troops and civilian employees by March 2004, and its strength will be reduced to 4,000 personnel; the army of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (VF) is to be cut by 5,200 forces to a level of 8,000 personnel. 15. During the reporting period, the Entity Armed Forces have carried out normal training activities, in compliance with the military provisions of the Dayton Peace Agreement. In February 2004, there were no reports of missing weapons from weapons storage sites. 16. There were a total of 135 Entity Armed Forces training and operational activities (15 VRS and 120 VF) during the reporting period and 205 movements (72 VRS and 133 VF) conducted during the reporting period. A total of 10 teams have been working on three separate mine-clearing tasks throughout the period. All entities can be considered to have been compliant. 17. SFOR conducted a total of 37 weapons storage sites and ammunition storage sites inspections during the reporting period (16 VRS and 21 VF). One site was closed this month and another 12 are pending closure. Outlook 18. In February, SFOR continued to maintain a safe and secure environment, and the armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina remain in compliance with the General Framework Agreement for Peace. During the reporting period, SFOR conducted several operations related to persons indicted for war crimes and individuals involved in their support networks. SFOR’s active role in weapons collection operations has diminished with responsibility now being transferred to the Entity Armed Forces.

482132

United Nations A/C.2/56/SR.25 General Assembly Fifty-sixth session Official Records Distr.: General6 December 2002 English Original: Spanish This record is subject to correction. Corrections should be sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned within one week of the date of publication to the Chief of the Official Records Editing Section, room DC2-750, 2 United Nations Plaza, and incorporated in a copy of the record. Corrections will be issued after the end of the session, in a separate corrigendum for each Committee. 01-62154 (E) *0162154* Second Committee Summary record of the 25th meeting Held at Headquarters, New York, on Tuesday, 6 November 2001, at 3 p.m. Chairman: Mr. Barnwell (Vice-Chairman) .................................... (Guyana) later: Mr. Djumala (Vice-Chairman) ................................... (Indonesia) Contents Agenda item 97: Sustainable development and international economic cooperation (continued) (a) Women in development (continued) (b) Human resources development (continued) (c) High-level dialogue on strengthening international economic cooperation for development through partnership (continued) (d) Implementation of the commitments and policies agreed upon in the Declaration on International Economic Cooperation, in particular the Revitalization of Economic Growth and Development of the Developing Countries, and implementation of the International Development Strategy for the Fourth United Nations Development Decade (continued) Agenda item 96: Sectoral policy questions (continued) (a) Business and development (continued) Agenda item 98: Environment and sustainable development (continued) (b) International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (continued) (c) Implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa (continued) (e) Further implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States (continued) The meeting was called to order at 3.20 p.m. Agenda item 97: Sustainable development and international economic cooperation (continued) (A/56/221, A/56/222-S/2001/736, A/56/306 and A/56/362-S/2001/87) (a) Women in development (continued) (A/56/321 and Corr.1) (b) Human resources development (continued) (A/56/162 and 306) (c) High-level dialogue on strengthening international economic cooperation for development through partnership (continued) (A/56/364 and 482) (d) Implementation of the commitments and policies agreed upon in the Declaration on International Economic Cooperation, in particular the Revitalization of Economic Growth and Development of the Developing Countries, and implementation of the International Development Strategy for the Fourth United Nations Development Decade (continued) (A/56/306) 1. Ms. Weill-Hallé (North American Liaison Office, International Fund for Agricultural Development) said that human and economic development required continued efforts to move gender issues from the margin to the mainstream. Gender inequalities were undermining global human and economic growth. Closing gender gaps in education resulted in faster economic growth, and improvements in the socio￾economic status and health of women also had an immediate and lasting impact on the well-being of the entire family. 2. The experience of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) had shown that rural women held the key to the goals in household food security and nutrition that were central to the Fund’s mandate and to the survival of poor rural households. In IFAD-assisted projects, women had proved to be a driving force in making them effective and in reducing poverty. However, the restricted access of women to knowledge, assets and services and their lesser influence on the decisions that affected their lives curtailed their ability to perform their multiple roles. 3. Consequently, women must be empowered to play active roles in decision-making and they must be ensured access to knowledge, technologies, assets and services. In developing countries, microfinancing had enabled women to increase their asset base, diminish their vulnerability, strengthen their self-confidence and improve their social status. While it was not a panacea for poverty reduction, microfinancing could contribute greatly to improving the living conditions of the rural and urban poor. Recognizing that, IFAD dedicated significant attention to the development of rural finance systems, institutional diversity and sustainable access of the rural poor to financial services. Roughly two thirds of IFAD projects had a rural finance component. That experience had yielded a number of lessons related to the gender perspective on microfinance. First, for poor rural women, access to financial services was more important than the level of interest rate they had to pay for the services. Therefore, it was important to focus on building sustainable rural finance institutions while at the same time expanding the outreach of those institutions towards the poor. Secondly, decisions on who should be the owners and who the users of microfinance institutions were best left to the people concerned. In some cultures, women would decide to be the sole owners; in others, they might prefer to form a separate unit within a microfinance institution or opt for some other solution. Thirdly, microfinance institutions needed to become more gender-sensitive in terms of the financial products and services they offered and in their operating procedures. Fourthly, because in most countries microenterprise activities were differentiated by sex, and support was customarily concentrated on microenterprises run by men, business development services specifically for women microentrepreneurs were needed. 4. Also, in countries where a wealth of rural finance activities had developed, it might be useful to elaborate national policies and strategies on financial services for the rural poor, both women and men. Such strategies could facilitate the provision of finance services to the poor, ensure that different initiatives were coherent and complementary, support the creation of an appropriate regulatory and legislative framework, and help develop demand-based and sustainable financial services over the long term. To make a reality of the millennium development goals, over half of which were directly correlated with the improved capabilities and well￾being of rural women, focused efforts would be required to redress gender inequalities and improve the social and economic statusof poor rural women. IFAD promised to continue its work to achieve that goal. 5. Ms. Siddharth (International Labour Organization) said that the International Labour Organization (ILO) provided technical assistance to developing countries and countries in transition, in the form of skills training for people living in poverty or social exclusion. Analysis had shown that gender issues were complex and cross-cutting, affecting all aspects of employment. The ILO adopted a holistic approach, which embraced the promotion of core labour standards and fundamental rights at work; job creation, with the emphasis on women; the improvement of working conditions, including social protection; and human resources development, training and social dialogue. 6. It was important to make skills development strategies and programmes more responsive to the needs of people, especially women living in poverty. New methodologies for formulating training and curriculum development programmes had therefore been introduced in a number of countries, with the aim of fostering collaboration with public and private training providers and with the relevant ministries. The ILO Capacity-building Programme on Gender, Poverty and Employment aimed: (a) to enhance the capacity of local, national and regional stakeholders to understand the interrelationship between gender, poverty and employment and to assess, develop and implement anti-poverty and employment promotion actions; and (b) to mainstream a gender-and-employment perspective into national and international policy agendas on poverty eradication. The programme had already begun in the Southern Cone of Latin America, Southern Africa, some Arab States and Central and Eastern Europe. 7. A striking trend in micro- and small enterprises was the significant rise in the number of women entrepreneurs. In many countries, such women had to contend with policy, regulatory and institutional environments that were unfriendly and had a bias against small enterprises. Nonetheless, more and more women were owners or managers of small enterprises in the less traditional sectors. ILO technical cooperation activities in that regard included assistance in designing and implementing programmes in the following fields: skills and entrepreneurship training, productivity improvement, managerial capacity￾building, accessing resources, institution-building and policy advice and research. ILO support for addressing gender concerns would be further extended by a new programme for boosting employment through small enterprise development, with a view to both reflecting and encouraging the growing number of women entrepreneurs. 8. Women continued to occupy the lower and middle ranks of organizations, had unequal access to training and promotion, encountered difficulty in entering male-dominated professions and were paid less than men for equal work. Faced with increasing competition in the global marketplace, the advantage lay with organizations that maximized the potential of their workforce by addressing the needs and aspirations of all their workers, both men and women. ILO supported the work of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Full Employment and Sustainable Livelihoods and would contribute actively to the preparation for the high-level segment of the 2002 session of the Economic and Social Council on the theme of the contribution of human resources development, including in the areas of health and education, to the process of development. 9. Mr. Al-Khal (Bahrain) said that legislation to promote the cause of women had been enacted in his country since the 1920s, and had dealt with questions relating to the legal situation of women, the right to the ownership and management of property and the right to health care, education, employment and social security. Women’s political rights, including the right to vote and the right to participate in public life, had been reaffirmed. The progress made had been due to the tireless work of the National Council for Women, whose efforts had been crowned with success. Women had been encouraged to participate actively in the life of society and in social and economic affairs and at the same time to strengthen the family, which was the basic unit of society. Women participated in government, were members of institutions of civil society and occupied senior posts in ministries. Some ambassadors were women. 10. In the context of the changes taking place in the economy and thus in the labour market, it was important to devote more attention to human resource development. It would therefore be necessary to modify education policies in order to adapt to those changes. A functional relationship would need to be developed between education and the knowledge-based professions, which had assumed more importance in the new economy. Human development reports would need to be examined and consideration would need to be given to the defects and drawbacks in existing labour legislation. The Government had adopted measures to stimulate national investment and promote foreign investment in the field of human resources, among others. It was crucial that experiences should be shared with other countries in order to strengthen international cooperation with a view to speeding up development that would lead to a better future. 11. Ms. Soettady (Indonesia) said that her delegation endorsed the statement made by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. The issue of women in development had been discussed in the Committee for over two decades, and it was further addressed in the Beijing Platform for Action. In debates on the issue, it had been agreed that the mobilization of women — particularly through gender mainstreaming in all walks of life, including development — was a critical factor in the advancement of women. Although the number of businesses owned by women had steadily increased throughout the world, women continued to encounter constraints in seeking access to financial resources. Such constraints had been aggravated by the steep downturn in the global economy and the uncertainties in the wake of the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001. 12. In developing countries, the most vulnerable groups, such as women and children, were worst affected by the negative impact of globalization. In the face of that situation, existing commitments to empower women must be met and strategies already adopted must be translated into reality. Women must be given access to credit at both the macro and the micro levels, to education, to high-paying jobs and to administrative and managerial positions, so that they could secure sustainable livelihoods for their families and communities. Such issues, particularly the gender perspective in macroeconomic development and the gender dimension in financing for development should be taken up at the International Conference on Financing for Development. 13. The Chairman said that the Commission had concluded the general debate on agenda item 97. Agenda item 96: Sectoral policy questions (continued) (a) Business and development (continued) Draft resolution on business and development (A/C.2/56/L.18) 14. Mr. Traub (United States of America) introduced the draft resolution, which was sponsored by his delegation. Agenda item 98: Environment and sustainable development (continued) (b) International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (A/C.2/56/L.15) Draft resolution on the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 15. Mr. Moeini Meybodi (Islamic Republic of Iran) introduced the draft resolution on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. 16. Mr. Djumala (Indonesia), Vice-Chairman, took the Chair. (c) Implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa (continued) Draft resolution on the implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa (A/C.2/56/L.17) 17. Mr. Moeini Meybodi (Islamic Republic of Iran), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said that the sponsors had made a number of revisions to the text which would be duly transmitted to the secretariat of the Committee. (e) Further implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States (continued) Draft resolution on the further implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States (A/C.2/56/L.16) 18. Mr. Moeini Meybodi (Islamic Republic of Iran), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said that the sponsors had made a number of revisions to the text which would be only transmitted to the secretariat of the Committee. The meeting rose at 4.15 p.m.

425638

UNITED NATIONS E Economic and Social Council Distr. LIMITED E/CN.4/S-5/L.1/Add.1* 23 October 2000 Original: ENGLISH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Fifth special session 17-19 October 2000 Agenda item 4 REPORT TO THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ON THE FIFTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMISSION DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMISSION Rapporteur: Ms. Marie GERVAIS-VIDRICAIRE Chapter IV. LETTER DATED 3 OCTOBER 2000 FROM THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF ALGERIA TO THE UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT GENEVA ADDRESSED TO THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (continued) _______ * The present document contains the conclusion of chapter IV, providing details of the action taken on the draft proposal submitted under agenda item 3. GE.00-15658 (E) IV. Letter dated 3 October 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Algeria to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (continued) Grave and massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel 1. At the 5th meeting, on 19 October 2000, the representative of Tunisia introduced draft resolution E/CN.4/S-5/L.2/Rev.1, sponsored by Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, China, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, the Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. 2. At the request of the representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, supported by the representatives of Tunisia and Venezuela, the Chairperson suspended consideration of the draft resolution. 3. At the 6th meeting, on 19 October 2000, the Commission resumed consideration of draft resolution E/CN.4/S-5/L.2/Rev.1. 4. Statements in connection with the draft resolution were made by the representatives of Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference) and Tunisia. 5. In accordance with rule 28 of the rules of procedure of the functional commissions of the Economic and Social Council, the attention of the Commission was drawn to the estimated administrative and programme budget implications of the draft resolution. 7. At the request of the representative of the United States of America, a roll-call vote was taken on the draft resolution, which was adopted by 19 votes to 16, with 17 abstentions. The voting was as follows: In favour: Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia, Venezuela. Against: Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstaining: Argentina, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Peru, Republic of Korea, Republic of the Congo, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Zambia. 8. Statements in explanation of vote after the vote were made by the representatives of Argentina, Burundi, Canada, Chile, France (on behalf of the European Union; the Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland and Romania aligned themselves with the statement), Guatemala, India, Japan, Nepal, Norway, Mauritius, the Republic of the Congo and the United States of America. 9. After the adoption of the draft resolution, statements in connection with the draft resolution were made by the observers for Israel and Palestine. 10. For the text of the resolution as adopted, see chapter II, resolution 2000/S-5/1. -----

538854

UNITED NATIONS E Economic and Social Council Distr. GENERAL E/CN.4/2005/20 14 December 2004 Original: ENGLISH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Sixty-first session Item 6 (a) of the provisional agenda RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION: COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF AND FOLLOW-UP TO THE DURBAN DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION Report of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action on its third session* Chairperson-Rapporteur: Mr. Juan Martabit (Chile) * The annexes are reproduced in the language of submission only. GE.04-16799 (E) 040105 Summary At its third session, the Intergovernmental Working Group conducted a thematic analysis of racism and health, racism and the Internet, and complementary standards. One issue repeatedly raised by delegations and discussed by the panellists was the lack of disaggregated health data on different racial, ethnic and minority groups, such information being important in developing health services sensitive to particular needs. Regarding racism and the Internet, delegations and panellists examined the competing interests of upholding freedom of speech and expression and the need to ban incitement to racism on the Internet. Concerning complementary standards, the participants found that the single most pressing obstacle to tackling racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, as well as the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, is the failure of States to implement their obligations and that concrete efforts at the national level, including by national human rights institutions, with appropriate support from the international community, would make a substantial contribution to the fight against racism. The Working Group adopted a set of recommendations on each theme. CONTENTS Paragraphs Page Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 4 I. ORGANIZATION OF THE SESSION .......................................... 2 - 14 4 A. Attendance ................................................................................ 4 - 7 4 B. Opening of the session .............................................................. 8 5 C. Election of the Chairperson-Rapporteur ................................... 9 5 D. Opening statements ................................................................... 10 - 11 5 E. Adoption of the agenda ............................................................. 12 5 F. Documentation .......................................................................... 13 5 G. Organization of work ................................................................ 14 5 II. GENERAL STATEMENTS ........................................................... 15 - 19 6 III. THEMATIC ANALYSIS ............................................................... 20 - 49 6 A. Racism and health ..................................................................... 20 - 36 6 B. Racism and the Internet ............................................................ 37 - 49 9 IV. COMPLEMENTARY STANDARDS ............................................ 50 - 63 12 V. FOLLOW-UP TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SECOND SESSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ............................................................................ 64 - 72 15 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 73 16 VII. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT ..................................................... 74 21 Annexes I. List of attendance ................................................................................................. 23 II. Agenda ................................................................................................................. 25 III. List of documents prepared for the Working Group ............................................ 26 Introduction 1. The present report is submitted to the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 2003/30. While the recommendations included in section VI were adopted by consensus by the Working Group, the other sections of the report are the sole responsibility of the Chairperson-Rapporteur. I. ORGANIZATION OF THE SESSION 2. As reflected in the report on the second session of the Working Group (E/CN.4/2004/20), under paragraph 26 of the recommendations, the present report is structured in four parts: general statements; thematic analysis (racism and health, racism and the Internet); complementary standards; recommendations and future work. 3. The Working Group held its third session in Geneva from 11 to 22 October 2004. The Working Group held a total of 20 meetings. A. Attendance 4. The session was attended by representatives of States Members of the United Nations, non-Member States, specialized agencies, treaty bodies, special procedures of the Commission on Human Rights, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations. (For the list of attendance, see annex I.) 5. Several experts were invited to participate in the three panels on the themes under consideration. Regarding the theme of racism and health, the following experts gave presentations: Mr. Paul Hunt, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; Ms. Helena Nygren-Krug, Health and Human Rights Adviser, World Health Organization (WHO); Ms. Cristina Torres Parodi, Regional Adviser in Health Policy Development, Pan American Health Organization (PAHO); Mr. Manuel Carballo, Director, Centre for Migration and Health (United Kingdom); Dr. Benedeto Saraceno, Director, Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse - Mental Health and Discrimination (WHO); Dr. Federico Montero, Medical Officer, Discrimination and Right to Health (WHO); Dr. Nora Groce, Professor of Global Health (Yale University); Ms. Miriam Maluwa, Senior Adviser, Law and Human Rights, Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS); and Dr. Ximena Avellaneda, Grupo de Estudios sobre la Mujer Rosario Castellanos (Rosario Castellanos Study Group on Women) - Health and Indigenous Peoples. 6. On the theme of racism and the Internet, the following experts gave presentations: Mr. Marc Furrer, Director, Federal Office of Communication (Switzerland); Mr. Ernest C.A. Ndukwe, Chief Executive Officer, Communications Commission (Nigeria); Mr. Alexander Ivanko, Senior Adviser on Freedom of the Media, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and Mr. Robert Shaw, Internet Policy Adviser, International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 7. On the theme of complementary standards, the following experts gave presentations: Mr. Alexandre Sicilianos, Vice-Chairman, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD); Mr. Raghavan Pillai, Vice-Chairman, CERD; Mr. Doudou Diène, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; Mr. Yuri Kolosov, member, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR); Ms. Patrina Patten, member, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); Mr. Lee Swepston, Chief, Equality and Employment Branch, Human Rights Coordinator, International Labour Office (ILO); Ms. Jo-Anne Bishop, Adviser on Tolerance and Non-Discrimination, Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR); and Mr. Serguei Lazarev, Chief, Fight against Discrimination and Racism Section, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). B. Opening of the session 8. At the first meeting, Mr. Dzidek Kedzia, Chief of the Research and Right to Development Branch in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), opened the session. C. Election of the Chairperson-Rapporteur 9. Also at the first meeting, Ambassador Juan Martabit (Chile) was elected Chairperson-Rapporteur by acclamation. D. Opening statements 10. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs. Louise Arbour, delivered the opening address. 11. The Chairperson-Rapporteur made a statement. E. Adoption of the agenda 12. Also at the first meeting, the Working Group adopted the agenda for its third session (E/CN.4/2004/WG.21/6) (annex II). F. Documentation 13. The Working Group had before it a number of documents, a complete list of which is attached (annex III). G. Organization of work 14. The Working Group approved its programme of work as contained in document E/CN.4/2004/WG.21/7. II. GENERAL STATEMENTS 15. Representatives of 13 States took the floor in the general debate on agenda item 5. Delegates stressed the importance of implementing the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, and expressed their commitment to fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Several welcomed the broad participation of States on the first day of the Working Group and called on States to continue to participate actively in the proceedings. Several expressed support for the pragmatic approach taken during the discussions with the aim of finding practical solutions to eliminate racism and racial discrimination. 16. Delegates discussed strategies that were being implemented at the national level. Anti-discrimination legislation had been adopted or was being elaborated in several countries. The Chairperson suggested that the texts of such legislation should be made available to Member States in order to share experiences of good practices. Numerous States referred to the work undertaken by various ministries within their Governments as well as by national human rights institutions in tackling racism and racial discrimination. One delegate mentioned the creation of a fund, with an allocation of substantial financial resources over several years, to coordinate measures to fight against racism, anti-Semitism and extremism. 17. Awareness-raising campaigns to inform the larger public about the positive aspects of multiculturalism and the importance of tolerance were under way in several countries. Such campaigns often targeted young people at school, and were designed as part of educational programmes against racism and racial discrimination. 18. Several delegates acknowledged that the primary responsibility for combating racial discrimination rests with States. States were encouraged to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and were reminded that the effective implementation of the Convention was of utmost importance. Some delegates acknowledged the positive efforts made to date by the United Nations and regional organizations in combating racism. The importance of the international legal framework in combating racism and racial discrimination was pointed out by many delegates. Some delegates mentioned the need to tackle contemporary forms of racism with additional tools. 19. An NGO observer stressed the difficulties faced by Muslim populations in the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001. Reference was also made to the plight of the Palestinian people, human rights defenders, indigenous peoples and minorities. III. THEMATIC ANALYSIS A. Racism and health 20. The Working Group began its thematic analysis of agenda item 6 by considering the topic of racism and health. 21. Paul Hunt provided an overview on health and discrimination. He stated that discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, gender and other factors was a key social determinant of health. He pointed out that a human rights approach brought an added value to the issue of health, such as a focus on the disadvantaged and vulnerable. Referring to the origins and scope of the right to health, he explained that the right to health went beyond health care to encompass safe drinking water, adequate sanitation and access to health-related information, and included freedoms, such as the right to be free from discrimination and the right to a system of health protection. 22. Non-discrimination meant that everyone had the right to the highest attainable standard of mental and physical health without distinction as to race, colour, national or ethnic origin. At the same time, attention must be given to ensure that health care was responsive to the particular needs of vulnerable and marginalized populations. Sound health policy-making within the context of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action required that the cultures and traditions of specific groups be taken into account by actively involving those who were affected by the decisions being made. He also emphasized the need to train health professionals so that they were sensitive to ethnic and cultural values in the delivery of health care. 23. Benedetto Saraceno highlighted the key linkages between discrimination and mental health. Referring to the persisting notion that behavioural and mental disorders were connected to certain groups of people, he explained that mental illness was prevalent across all populations, regardless of race or ethnicity. Certain populations such as refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants were disproportionately burdened by mental health problems owing to their socio-economic situations and concerns linked to immigration status. Exposure to racism severely affected a person’s dignity which, in turn, was detrimental to the mental health of the individual. Emphasizing that racism was a social determinant of mental ill-health, he indicated that people exposed to discrimination encountered barriers to accessing mental health care. 24. Noting that access to mental health treatment and care, and discrimination at the workplace were critical issues for marginalized and vulnerable populations, Dr. Saraceno stressed the need to ensure that mental health services were accessible and affordable, and responsive to the needs of marginalized populations, including migrants. Providing education to indigenous women and to girls was also an effective way of empowering them in light of their vulnerability to mental health problems. In his view, education and sensitization campaigns in schools, hospitals, the workplace, as well as by the media in countries of immigration were effective ways of fighting stigma and discrimination. 25. Helena Nygren-Krug, WHO, underlined the significance of the World Conference in shedding light onto the issue of health and discrimination. She explained the intersection between discrimination and health, including the importance of being sensitive to discrimination in designing public health programmes. For example, outreach activities undertaken in a single language or ignoring health problems unique to certain groups could result in discrimination. She also referred to discrimination as a determinant of health. She gave examples of WHO activities that addressed discrimination, including a world health survey that found discrimination in the way that different groups of people were treated by the health system and in the training of health professionals on human rights, in particular, about stigma and discrimination. 26. Cristina Torres Parodi cited global examples of good practices in health policies and programmes that addressed racial/ethnic inequalities in access to health. Best practices included: developing health programmes and strategies that took into account a particular ethnic group; disaggregating information by ethnic origin; creation of new institutions to deal with racial discrimination; implementing special programmes and conducting research to reduce disparities in health conditions and access. In her view, financial commitment was the biggest obstacle to addressing racial/ethnic inequalities regarding access to health information and services. She stressed the need to develop ethnically sensitive indicators to monitor progress in meeting the health-related Millennium Development Goals, to introduce an ethnic variable into national statistics and to utilize the information in policy-making. 27. Nora Groce addressed racism in the delivery of health care. She asserted that the denial of health programmes and support services to members of specific ethnic and minority groups was the most obvious form of racism. Racism could be manifested in more subtle forms, namely in separate services, often substandard, for members of ethnic or minority populations or in cases where there was a refusal to acknowledge culturally divergent practices. The denial of the right to decision-making in health policies by the members of ethnic and minority communities was also a form of racism. She also underlined the need for improved statistics on health with regard to minorities and other vulnerable groups. 28. Ximena Avellaneda explained the impact of discrimination on the health of indigenous peoples. She noted that the systems of traditional medicine maintained by indigenous peoples through the ages had been discriminated against and rejected in national health plans. She underlined the need for strengthening the capacity of indigenous organizations to participate in decision-making and implementation of health plans that involved the welfare of indigenous peoples. She also called attention to the difficulties faced by indigenous peoples with respect to their reproductive health and to violence against women. In providing specific ideas for eliminating such discrimination, she underscored the importance of the political will of Governments to work for the benefit of women. 29. Federico Montero argued that health and rehabilitation services were inaccessible or non-existent for the vast majority of persons with disabilities in most countries. Many of the persons with disabilities lived in isolated areas of developing countries where access to transportation was difficult. In order to promote and guarantee access, persons with disabilities and their organizations needed to be directly involved in the planning, monitoring and evaluation of the health and rehabilitation services. People with disabilities were disproportionately poor, poverty could cause disability and disability perpetuated poverty. He stressed the importance of mainstreaming disability prevention and rehabilitation in all poverty reduction programmes and of promoting community-based rehabilitation strategies. 30. Miriam Maluwa described the complex linkages that existed between discrimination, poverty and HIV/AIDS. Women belonging to minority groups were particularly vulnerable to HIV infection as they faced dual discrimination, once by virtue of their gender and second, based on their ethnicity. She reiterated the need for disaggregated data to demonstrate the trends of HIV epidemics in marginalized communities. She called for strengthening of local and national programmes to counter intolerance against people with AIDS, capitalizing on existing knowledge, and for strong commitment by Governments to promoting access to HIV prevention measures without discrimination. 31. Manuel Carballo focused on the issue of access to health services for migrants, regardless of their legal status, refugees and displaced persons. People on the move were more vulnerable to health risks, including work-related accidents and diseases, sexually transmitted infections, and reproductive health and chronic psychosocial problems. He underlined the importance of ensuring access to health care and social support in countries of destination. When the health of migrants and refugees was threatened, so was the health of people in countries of destination. Therefore, there was a vested interest on the part of Governments of countries of destination to ensure access by these groups to health services. 32. In the discussion that followed, many participants agreed that racism was a social determinant of health and that States had the obligations to develop programmes to address disparities in access to health. 33. One issue repeatedly raised was the lack of disaggregated health data on different racial, ethnic and minority groups, needed to understand their health situation and the availability to them of health services and information. One participant pointed out that lack of disaggregated data impeded the development of comprehensive national anti-discrimination plans. Ms. Maluwa indicated that the lack of consensus on the definition and classification of different groups hampered systematic efforts to collect disaggregated data. She also noted the possibility of such data being used in a negative manner. She added that UNAIDS had no disaggregated data regarding HIV and race. 34. Several participants argued that urgent attention should be given to neglected diseases which often afflicted the poor in developing countries. Mr. Hunt noted that WHO had implemented good programmes in that area, but agreed that the amount of research being conducted in the field of neglected diseases was insufficient. He called for additional funds to be made available for such research. 35. Mr. Hunt stressed the important role played by national human rights institutions in relation to racism and health. He suggested that more attention should be given to developing a sound methodology for impact assessments on human rights and health prior to the formulation of policies. 36. Regarding asylum-seekers and health, Mr. Carballo said that States often gave preference to asylum-seekers with urgent health needs. Citing trends for asylum policies to become stricter, he pointed out that health problems, including stress, could be exacerbated by the considerable time spent waiting for a decision on asylum. B. Racism and the Internet 37. The Working Group continued its thematic analysis of the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action by considering the topic of racism and the Internet. 38. Robert Shaw presented an overview of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) which took place in Geneva in December 2003. He referred to the background of WSIS as well as the Declaration of Principles and the Plan of Action adopted by the Summit. While recognizing the potential of new information technology to promote sustainable development, WSIS also confirmed that preventive measures must be taken, as determined by law, against abusive uses of information technology, such as illegal acts motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The ethnic dimension of the information society was one of the key WSIS principles. The focus of the second WSIS, to be held in Tunisia in 2005, would include follow-up to the Geneva Declaration and Plan of Action as well as the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance. Mr. Shaw suggested that a WSIS thematic meeting on ethical dimensions of information communication technologies (ICTs) could be organized to encourage stakeholders to continue research in this area. 39. Ernest C.A. Ndukwe expressed his views from a regulator’s perspective, as well as that of someone from a developing country. He cited the crucial role of the Internet in driving the economy and referred to the digital divide between the developed and developing countries. Most Governments in developing countries were concerned about facilitating expansion of the much-needed ICT infrastructure to generate economic growth. Regulatory bodies worldwide had adopted a light-handed regulatory approach so as not to limit the enormous benefits of the Internet. Taking account of the nature of the Internet, he stressed that it must be mandatory for all States not only to legislate against acts that incited hatred in any form, but also to track down and prosecute offenders. Once the Government had set the appropriate legislation in place, the regulator should ensure compliance by service providers. The regulator also had a responsibility for consumer protection and played a direct role in eliminating racism and hate messages on the Internet. 40. Alexander Ivanko stated that a least-restrictive approach should be taken in addressing misuse of the Internet. He emphasized the importance of ensuring freedom of expression and equal access to the Internet, and did not advocate regulation. He also referred to the difficulty of filtering sites and the relatively small portion of cyberspace occupied by problematic web sites, such as those inciting racism and hatred. He expressed support for educational programmes to tackle hatred. For example, in Canada, non-governmental organizations offered classes in schools to help students learn how to deal with web sites that had racist content. 41. Marc Furrer underlined the importance of maximizing the opportunities offered by ICTs, while minimizing the dangers of ICTs. He stated that every country should have a national law that established as a criminal act racist action and the public spread of racist ideas. It was not necessary to have a specific law on the Internet, as racist action must be judged a crime whether committed on the Internet or by any other means. Such a law must respect the principle of freedom of expression and clearly draw the line between freedom of expression and a criminal racist act. The responsibilities of the Government, the legal system, the private sector and civil society at the national level must be clear. Private Internet service providers needed to know when they must take action against customers who violated a law against racism. Governments must ensure restrictive use of such a law so as not to limit freedom of speech. He further noted the importance of harmonizing legal structures, as the Internet was not bound by national borders. Coordinating international action, such as bringing the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action into the WSIS process, was also essential. 42. In the discussion that followed, many participants recognized the positive role of the Internet in promoting human development and fostering a culture of tolerance, while expressing concern about the use of the Internet for widely spreading racist propaganda. The importance of ensuring equal access to all people around the world was reiterated by many. 43. There was a discussion on whether regulation was necessary. Mr. Furrer defined regulation as the legal enforcement of measures against racist content on the Internet. Mr. Ndukwe said that regulation meant checking misuse of Internet resources. Many participants disagreed with Mr. Ivanko, who opposed regulation of the Internet to fight racism. Mr. Ivanko stressed the importance of ensuring freedom of expression, and was of the opinion that hate messages were often spread by classic media and not necessarily the Internet, and that the courts should decide whether there was a clear and present danger posed by racist sites. Mr. Shaw pointed out that regulation was indispensable for using new technologies such as the Internet. The need to strike a balance between freedom of expression and cyber abuse was echoed throughout the discussion. 44. Many participants agreed that a national law that established as a criminal act racist action and the spread of racist ideas was necessary. Some referred to a specific law banning incitement of racism on the Internet, while others referred to a more general anti-discrimination law that criminalized racist action on and off the Internet. 45. Several participants emphasized the importance of freedom of expression and the need to clearly draw the line between criminal racist acts and freedom of speech. Mr. Ndukwe, among others, noted that regulatory measures should not hamper the use of the Internet. The existence of anti-discrimination legislation was seen as having a deterrent and educational effect for potential offenders. Technical difficulties in finding the offender should not discourage authorities from regulating the use of the Internet to propagate racist messages. One participant suggested that all web sites should bear the name of the author to facilitate prosecution. 46. Several participants underlined the role of regulators in fighting racism in cyberspace. To avoid the risk of service providers being ruled by the market, Governments needed to oversee any self-regulatory measures taken by the private sector. Mr. Ndukwe said that consumer protection constituted a vital responsibility of regulators. 47. It was agreed that international cooperation was essential in addressing the digital divide between developed and developing countries as well as in combating the misuse of the Internet, such as inciting racism and hatred. In some countries, in particular in Africa, infrastructure for establishing an Internet connection was poor and the market had just begun to open up to operators. Mr. Ivanko explained that OSCE provided financial support to Internet cafés to promote the use of the Internet. An NGO participant highlighted the digital divide and the need to ensure access to the Internet by indigenous peoples. 48. Concerning combating racism in cyberspace, reference was made several times to the Convention on Cybercrime. Participants stressed that international cooperation was possible even if the applicable legislation was different among countries. Mr. Ivanko, however, referred to the difficulty in securing international cooperation as some countries could block the process of building consensus towards uniformity in relevant legislations. 49. Many participants stated that OHCHR should organize a seminar on the human rights dimension of the use of the Internet. Such a seminar could take stock of measures that had already been taken in fighting racism on the Internet and recommend areas in which the Working Group could be active in following-up on the Durban process in that regard. One participant suggested including the Internet and terrorism as one of the issues to be discussed. IV. COMPLEMENTARY STANDARDS 50. In connection with item 7 of the agenda, Alexandre Sicilianos presented the views of CERD on the implementation of the substantive provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. He said that article 1 clarified the scope of racial discrimination and provided protection for the groups of victims identified in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. Concerning article 2, the Committee emphasized the obligation of States parties to take special and concrete measures to guarantee vulnerable groups the full enjoyment of human rights. He reiterated the Committee’s view that the prohibition of the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred was compatible with the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association. Article 4 also applied to material disseminated on the Internet. The Committee strongly felt that any reservations limiting the scope of article 4 should be withdrawn. Regarding article 5, Mr. Sicilianos stressed that the adoption of an international instrument on cultural rights defining the content of those rights would be useful for the work of the Committee. With regard to article 6, the Committee noted the difficulties faced by victims of racial discrimination in seeking protection and remedies against acts of racial discrimination, and invited States parties to regulate the burden of proof in civil proceedings, thereby ensuring that the complainant did not bear the entire burden of proof. Finally, with respect to article 7, he underlined the importance of human rights education in the elimination of racial discrimination. 51. Raghavan Pillai expressed the views of the Committee on the implementation and effectiveness of the Convention. He began by stressing the importance of the reporting process for States parties, enabling them to assess and evaluate as well as improve, among other things, existing legal provisions. He noted the resource constraints of States parties in preparing reports and referred to the options for dealing with overdue reports, such as the submission of a consolidated document. Referring to the Committee’s view that preventive measures should be a part of its regular agenda, he said that early warning measures were to be directed at preventing existing problems from escalating into conflicts. The presence of a pattern of escalating racial hatred and violence was one of the criteria for taking early warning measures. He cited the lack of awareness on the part of the public with respect to the existence of the possibility of communications from individuals or groups and the importance of first exhausting national remedies. He concluded that complementary standards in procedures evolved with the dynamics of the work of the Committee. 52. Doudou Diène elaborated on the new trends of racism. The struggle for human rights in the area of discrimination had eroded in light of the fight against terrorism, and there had been an increase in xenophobic political platforms worldwide. He also pointed out that there was an emerging trend towards establishing a hierarchy among different forms of discrimination. In order to counter such trends, the universal nature of the struggle against racism must be emphasized, and linked to the struggle for multiculturism. He stressed the need to implement existing norms before considering the development of a new instrument. Coordination among the mechanisms set up to fight racism was of the utmost importance. 53. Pramila Patten provided a gender perspective on racial discrimination. Noting that racial discrimination did not affect men and women in the same way, she pointed out that women victims of racism faced structural barriers, including poverty, social exclusion, insecure legal status, violence and difficulty in accessing the labour market. CEDAW had noted that women suffered multiple forms of discrimination based on the grounds of race and ethnic or religious identity, recognized the intersection of gender and ethnicity, addressed women who were at special risk of violence, and emphasized the special health needs of women belonging to vulnerable groups. CEDAW had consistently reflected the rights of minority and indigenous women in its concluding observations. She stressed that the effective implementation of existing instruments is crucial in combating racism and encouraged the use of individual complaint procedures, complementarity among treaty bodies and the ongoing reform of the treaty bodies. 54. Yuri Kolosov presented his views on the issue of complementary standards in connection with the authoritative legal status of general comments and observations issued by treaty bodies and their possible role in filling in gaps as complementary standards. In this regard, a determination should be made as to whether such comments and conclusions were legally binding or not. Mr. Kolosov referred to the possibility of putting forward a request, through the General Assembly or the High Commissioner on Human Rights, to the International Court of Justice for such a determination. With regard to complementary standards, he called for broad participation by States in the implementation of international treaties combating discrimination; he suggested the transformation of declarations into treaties; he mentioned the possible elaboration of a model national law against discrimination and the development of a school programme to teach students about different civilizations; and urged revitalization of the International Convention Concerning the Use of Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace of 1936. He also explained the need for a code of ethnics for Internet service providers. 55. Lee Swepston referred to various ILO conventions relevant to combating racism in the field of labour. He underlined the significance of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its follow-up, which recognized that the members of ILO had an obligation to respect the principles concerning the fundamental rights contained in the ILO conventions. The right to be free from discrimination was one of those fundamental rights. Citing practical aspects of the work of ILO, he remarked that the ratification and implementation of existing legal instruments were important and that ratification campaigns to encourage States to accept certain legal norms could be effective. He also referred to the reluctance of States to collect data by race and ethnic group, such as the racial make-up of the workforce. Lack of information on indigenous people, for instance, was contributing to their exclusion in society. National human rights institutions should have a role in identifying racial discrimination. 56. Serguei Lazarev outlined the UNESCO strategies, priorities and activities which reflected the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. The fight against racism, discrimination and exclusion was central to the mandate of UNESCO and the World Conference had given new impetus to the UNESCO work programme. New UNESCO strategies would aim at: revitalizing efforts in the fight against racism; reinforcing cooperation with other United Nations agencies; and strengthening awareness-raising activities in the field. Priority areas of work would include: strengthening research efforts on the link between current forms of racism and discrimination as well as traditional prejudices and forms of discrimination; pursuing the link between discrimination and women, HIV/AIDS, globalization and other new forms of discrimination; and construction of identities in multicultural and multi-ethnic societies. UNESCO would also facilitate the ratification of its standard-setting instruments such as the 1960 Convention against Discrimination in Education. The new strategies had been designed as a multidisciplinary exercise, requiring cooperation among the organization’s programme sectors, namely, social and human sciences, natural sciences, education, culture and communication. 57. Jo-Anne Bishop described the increased role of OSCE in promoting tolerance and combating racism. ODIHR, among others, had been tasked with serving as a collection point for information as well as with monitoring incidents motivated by racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance. In developing its Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Programme, ODIHR had concentrated its efforts on understanding what activities were being undertaken by other organizations. Ms. Bishop recommended several measures to ensure the implementation of existing international standards, including providing concrete support and assistance to States which had yet to adopt, implement or strengthen national laws to meet international standards, as well as establishing an international cadre of law enforcement trainers to provide an international standard of law enforcement training. 58. Following the panellists’ remarks, a group of countries urged States that had not done so to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and effectively implement the existing conventions that dealt with the fight against racism and related intolerance. The group further stated that the effective implementation of existing conventions should not prevent the Working Group from addressing the gaps identified. In the view of the group, the best way to deal with gaps in the existing conventions was not through the adoption of general recommendations by the treaty bodies but through the elaboration of optional protocols to the relevant international conventions, beginning with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Such an optional protocol could deal with definitions of new racist crimes, a general prohibition of discrimination, human rights education to promote racial harmony, discrimination against workers in the informal economy and Internet crimes, and set up criteria for the annual publication of a “racial equality index” as proposed by the independent eminent experts. 59. Another group of countries highlighted the Committee’s view that a State’s failure to ratify or to implement the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, rather than the gaps in the Convention itself, was the key issue in combating contemporary forms of racism. The group stressed that it shared the views of CERD that the single most pressing obstacle to tackling racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, as well as the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, was the failure of States to implement their obligations. The group believed that concrete efforts at the national level, including by national human rights institutions, with appropriate support from the international community, would make a substantial contribution to the fight against racism. Citing the Committee’s comments on article 4, the group said that further discussions in relation to complementary standards should proceed on the basis of an assessment of the added value of any additional instruments in combating racism. The group emphasized that the discussion on complementary standards and the implementation of existing standards were interlinked. 60. Several participants expressed support for the views of one or the other group of countries, to varying degrees. Many agreed that the lack of political will on the part of Governments was a major obstacle in the fight against racism and discrimination. 61. The first group of countries also referred to the proposal made by the former Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights during the second session of the Working Group that further standard-setting might be useful in the areas of ethnic cleansing, human rights education, genocide, indigenous populations and propagation of hatred through the Internet. The group cited the proposal as an example of a way to deal with gaps in the existing conventions. Several participants, however, questioned the need to develop new instruments in those areas, such as human rights education, and called for the gaps to be identified prior to consideration of additional instruments. Some participants argued that the existing legal framework did not address the multiple forms of discrimination mentioned in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, and stressed the need for complementary standards. 62. Several participants shared the concern expressed by Mr. Diène that there had been an increase in xenophobic political platforms worldwide. Several underscored Mr. Diène’s call for more attention to be paid to the universal nature of the struggle against racism. Mr. Diène emphasized the need to counter the current trend towards establishing a hierarchy among different forms of discrimination, and said that specific forms of discrimination experienced by certain groups must be raised to the universal level. Mr. Diène emphasized the direct link between fighting racism and the long-term construction of multicultural societies. The recognition of plural identities was of the utmost importance and victims of discrimination should not be “locked up” in certain communities. Cultural diversity, multiculturalism and the building of cultural identities were all essential elements for combating all forms of discrimination. 63. A participant underlined the importance of country visits by CERD. Drafting an optional protocol to the Convention setting out conditions and procedures for such visits could be undertaken by the Committee, if needed. The visits could also be organized in the context of early warning. V. FOLLOW-UP TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SECOND SESSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 64. Items 8 and 9 were discussed together. The Coordinator of the Anti-Discrimination Unit (ADU) presented an overview of the follow-up measures taken by OHCHR in response to the recommendations of the second session of the Working Group. Those measures took into consideration the main focus of the role of OHCHR, which was to follow up the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, by collecting information on initiatives taken by interested stakeholders while focusing on servicing established follow-up mechanisms and other meetings, providing technical cooperation to partners, strengthening inter-agency coordination, expanding liaison with NGOs and youth organizations, and launching a series of publications and other awareness-raising and outreach material. 65. In 2004, the High Commissioner had submitted a report to the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/2004/17 and Corr.1) and the Secretary-General had submitted a report to the General Assembly (A/59/375). 66. The Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent held its fourth session in Geneva from 25 October to 5 November 2004 and considered the impact of racism on health, employment and housing. It is envisaged that the experts will undertake their first-ever country mission in 2005, at the request of the Government of the country concerned. 67. The independent eminent experts, who initially met in November 2004 inGeneva to assess the international standards in fighting racism with a view to preparing complementary standards, and to address challenges and policy issues pertaining to the work of the other two follow-up mechanisms, would meet again in 2005. 68. OHCHR/ADU continued to contribute to regional activities. An intergovernmental meeting in Brasilia for countries in the region on how to address the health-related Millennium Development Goals from a human rights perspective, jointly organized with PAHO, was scheduled to take place from 1 to 3 December 2004. 69. OHCHR continued to cooperate with the special procedures of the Commission, relevant United Nations bodies and specialized agencies, international and regional organizations, CERD, the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights, UNESCO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, ILO, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance and ODIHR. 70. Technical cooperation continued to be provided to strengthen national human rights institutions’ capacity in adopting national plans of action to combat racism, support awareness-raising initiatives and fund small grants schemes under the Assisting Communities Together (ACT) project. 71. With regard to the dissemination of information on the work of OHCHR, a newly redesigned ADU web site would soon be operational. In the area of publications, joint projects had been undertaken, inter alia, with WHO and UNAIDS (“HIV/AIDS: Stand up for Human Rights”) and UNESCO (“Dimensions of racism”). They would soon be made available to the general public. 72. Activities with NGOs and youth organizations had taken place worldwide, with the support or at the initiative of OHCHR, in close cooperation with other agencies or regional organizations. Meetings, which had attracted enthusiastic participation, were held in Washington D.C., Maracaïbo, Venezuela, and Quito in March 2004, Yaoundé in July 2004 (in association with the United Nations Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy for Central Africa), and Barcelona, Spain, in August 2004. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 73. Following discussion on and analysis of the thematic issues of racism and health and racism and the Internet, and on the issue of complementary standards, the Working Group agreed by consensus to adopt the following recommendations: General 1. States should display greater political will, strengthen national legislation, further develop and improve implementation strategies and take concrete actions so as to overcome the obstacles to combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and achieving racial equality. 2. States should be encouraged to develop or elaborate national action plans to promote diversity, equality, equity, social justice, equality of opportunity and the participation of all. In so doing, they should take a participatory approach, consulting with all sectors of society, including the victims of racism. In this regard, there is a need to identify and implement good practices to strengthen local and national programmes in countering racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance. 3. New strategies should be developed to address multiple or aggravated forms of discrimination, in particular those suffered by vulnerable groups. 4. States should improve the collection, compilation, analysis, dissemination and publication of reliable statistical data at the national and local levels in order to assess regularly the situation of victims and implement policies to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in compliance with international human rights law and their national legislation. OHCHR should provide technical assistance to develop the capacity-building of countries to gather statistical data. Such statistical data should be made available to the relevant human rights monitoring bodies and mechanisms, including as part of States parties’ periodic reports to the human rights treaty bodies. Racism and health 5. The introduction of an anti-discrimination perspective in health policies and programmes, including in those developed in the framework of poverty reduction strategies, should ensure that health services are accessible, affordable and culturally and linguistically appropriate to all sectors of society, including to vulnerable groups and victims of multiple forms of discrimination. 6. Health education campaigns should be elaborated and carried out. Culturally sensitive information and recommendations about health and health care should be disseminated in appropriate languages, and messages must be adapted to special conditions (disabilities, language, gender and illiteracy) of their intended audiences. 7. Ombudspersons, national human rights institutions or other appropriate mechanisms should have, as part of their responsibilities, the fight against discriminatory practices in health systems and provide appropriate assistance to victims seeking effective remedies. 8. States should mainstream attention to disability in all poverty reduction strategies and health-related policies with the aim of promoting rehabilitation of, equal opportunities for, and social inclusion of people with disabilities who are also subject to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. They should also ensure that all international development partnerships include aspects related to health, education, and the economic independence of persons with disabilities and their families. 9. States should strengthen international cooperation and technical assistance, as well as partnerships at the national and international levels, to help developing countries in mainstreaming anti-discriminatory and anti-racist measures, actions, policies and programmes in their health-care systems, including in the collection and use of statistics appropriate for anti-discrimination public health policy-making. 10. All victims of racially motivated acts of violence require physical and mental health programmes and services that are responsive to their needs, including with respect to gender issues as well as other grounds of multiple discrimination. Mental health must be given greater attention within national and international health policies, strategies and programmes. 11. WHO should be encouraged to develop, in cooperation with OHCHR, the Special Rapporteur on the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and other interested parties, an effective methodology for assessing the impact of health-related policies through a human rights perspective. 12. In view of the fact that the issue of neglected diseases is a critical challenge to developing countries, the Special Rapporteur on the enjoyment of the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health is herein encouraged to work together with WHO on ways in which the international community can address it. 13. There is a need to reinforce the policies and programmes of international organizations on the implementation of the commitments contained in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, by including a victim-oriented perspective, supporting technical cooperation projects for local capacity-building in developing countries, and mobilizing additional international funding for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. 14. The international community should exert all efforts and adopt measures towards ensuring access to affordable medication for all, in particular victims of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, many of whom are subject or susceptible to different forms of discrimination. 15. The international community should be urged to strengthen its efforts in addressing the special health needs of people living under foreign occupation, refugees and internally displaced persons suffering from racism and racial discrimination. The special health needs of migrants also have to be addressed. 16. Donor organizations should pay greater attention to tackling the problem of urgent health care of refugees and internally displaced persons, in particular, in zones of protracted conflict or forgotten humanitarian crisis. Racism and the Internet 17. Legally enforceable measures should be adopted and implemented at the national level, in conformity with international human rights law, to counter incitement to racial hatred or acts of violence through the media and new information and communication technologies, including the Internet. 18. There is a need to identify and implement good practices at the national and international levels to strengthen the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance on the Internet, and to enhance international cooperation between law enforcement agencies and national institutions in these fields. 19. Human rights education should play a prominent role in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and promoting a culture of peace and dialogue. Educational policies and programmes should be formulated to promote peace, respect for cultural diversity and universal human rights, non-exclusion and non-discrimination. 20. States should provide OHCHR with information on their implementation of the provisions of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action relevant to combating racism on the Internet. 21. On the question of the elaboration of voluntary ethical codes of conduct and self-regulatory measures and policies (Programme of Action, para. 144), States should urge the private sector to proceed in a participatory and transparent manner. 22. OHCHR should organize a high-level seminar within the next session of the Working Group on the Internet and racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The purpose of the seminar would be to consider progress made in the implementation of relevant provisions of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; to assess the possibilities of and challenges posed by the use of the Internet to propagate or to counter material which incites racial hatred and acts of violence and propose concrete measures to be taken at the international and national levels to combat the abuse of the Internet for all forms of racist manifestations; and to examine the contribution that the Internet can make in the fostering of social harmony and the fight against racism. OHCHR should endeavour to ensure the participation of all stakeholders, inter alia States, WSIS, international and regional organizations, NGOs, the private sector and the media. 23. The United Nations web sites, particularly that of OHCHR, should be used as a vehicle for combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, including through the follow-up and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, both at the national and the international level. 24. The Working Group calls for full implementation of the recommendations contained in the ministerial declaration of the high-level segment of the Economic and Social Council at its substantive session of 2000, “Development and international cooperation in the twenty-first century: the role of information technology in the context of a knowledge-based global economy”, thus helping to bridge the digital divide and to foster digital opportunities and counter poverty and exclusion, which affects in particular victims of racial discrimination and related intolerance. Complementary standards 25. The Working Group considers it appropriate to recall that the obstacles to overcoming racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and achieving racial equality lie mainly in the lack of political will, weak legislation, and lack of implementation strategies and concrete action by States. 26. The Working Group reiterates the urgency of the universal ratification of and accession to existing international human rights instruments, in particular accession to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, with a view to universal ratification by 2005, and to other relevant international human rights instruments,1 especially those that lack an adequate number of ratifications. 27. In combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, States should consider withdrawing reservations contrary to the object and purpose of the International Convention and consider withdrawing other reservations to relevant international and regional legal instruments on human rights and non-discrimination. 28. To enhance the effective implementation of the International Convention, States should consider making the declaration envisaged in article 14 of that instrument, deploy further efforts to comply fully with their reporting obligations, and follow up on concluding observations and pay due attention to general recommendations adopted by CERD. 29. To ensure enhanced and coherent implementation of existing international human rights instruments, coordination should be improved between all regional and international organizations and human rights bodies with a mandate to address the issue of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Fields of coordination could include technical assistance and the collection, dissemination and exchange of relevant statistics and information on best practices. 30. In the implementation of existing standards, contemporary or new forms or manifestations of racism and xenophobia should be fought. States should take action to tackle racist platforms in political institutions present in various parts of the world, particularly when they impact on the broader political debate and affect people seriously. Any attempts to justify, intellectually and morally, any form of racism shall be rejected. 31. States must ensure that anti-terrorist measures are in compliance with international human rights standards in order to ensure that such measures do not result in racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. 32. Attempts to establish hierarchies among different forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, as well as among the victims, must be countered. 33. In the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the legal human rights-based approach must be complemented by intellectual and cultural strategies aimed at reaffirming the value of multiculturalism within and among States, as well as respect for cultural diversity and for universal human rights. 34. The Working Group reaffirms its mandate to prepare complementary standards to update and strengthen the existing instruments dealing with the elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. 35. The Working Group should focus its efforts on strengthening the implementation of existing instruments by identifying gaps in international human rights law, with a view to preparing complementary standards to address them. In contributing to these efforts, the Working Group should further conduct an in-depth assessment and evaluation of the implementation of existing international instruments, including suggestions to enhance the effectiveness of the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Complementary standards should strengthen the existing norms and bring added value. 36. OHCHR is requested to organize a four- to five-day high-level seminar within the fourth session of the Working Group to address the work identified in paragraphs 22 and 35 of the present recommendations. VII. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT 74. Having adopted its recommendations by consensus and entrusted the Chairperson-Rapporteur with the finalization of the other sections, the Working Group adopted the present report on 21 October 2004. Note 1 (a) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; (b) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; (c) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948; (d) International Labour Organization Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97); (e) Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others of 1949; (f) Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, and its 1967 Protocol; (g) International Labour Organization Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111); (h) Convention against Discrimination in Education, adopted on 14 December 1960 by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; (i) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women of 1979, with a view to achieving universal ratification within five years, and its Optional Protocol of 1999; (j) Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 and its two Optional Protocols of 2000, and the International Labour Organization Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138) and Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182); (k) International Labour Organization Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975 (No. 143); (l) International Labour Organization Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) and the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992; (m) International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families of 1990; (n) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 1998; and (o) United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the Convention and the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the Convention of 2000. Annex I LIST OF ATTENDANCE States Members of the United Nations Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Ghana, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen. Non-member States represented by observers Holy See. United Nations Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Specialized agencies Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International Labour Organization (ILO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Health Organization (WHO). Intergovernmental organizations African Union, European Commission, International Organization for Migration, League of Arab States, Organization of the Islamic Conference. Non-governmental organizations General consultative status International Federation of Business and Professional Women, Organization of African Trade Union Unity. Special consultative status Baha’i International Community, InternationalCommittee for the Respect and Application of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, International Service for Human Rights, Lawyers Without Borders, United Nations Watch, Worldwide Organization for Women. Roster Association for the School as an Instrument of Peace, Association of World Citizens, World Peace Council, World Union for Progressive Judaism. Accredited to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance Aspacio Afroamericano, Centro Studi per L’Evoluzione Umana, Indigenous Peoples and Nations Coalition. Annex II AGENDA 1. Opening of the session. 2. Election of the Chairperson-Rapporteur. 3. Adoption of the agenda. 4. Organization of work. 5. General statements: exchange of information on participants’ implementation activities and debate on issues of general interest to the implementation process. 6. Thematic analysis: discussion on and analysis of the following major issues: (a) Racism and health; (b) Racism and the Internet. 7. Complementary international standards: examination of submissions from the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and other United Nations bodies and specialized agencies. 8. Follow-up to the recommendations of the second session. 9. Recommendations for future work. 10. Adoption of conclusions and recommendations. 11. Adoption of the report. Annex III LIST OF DOCUMENTS PREPARED FOR THE WORKING GROUP Symbol TitleE/CN.4/2004/WG.21/6 Provisional agenda E/CN.4/2004/WG.21/7 Draft programme of work E/CN.4/2004/WG.21/8 Symbol not used E/CN.4/2004/WG.21/9 Symbol not used E/CN.4/2004/WG.21/10 and Add.1 Views of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on the implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and its effectiveness E/CN.4/2004/WG.21/11 Contribution by other intergovernmental organizations -----

490576

United Nations E/CN.7/2003/10 Economic and Social Council Distr.: General 29 January 2003 Original: English V.03-80680 (E) 270203 280203 *0380680* Commission on Narcotic Drugs Forty-sixth session Vienna, 8-17 April 2003 Item 5 of the provisional agenda* Illicit drug traffic and supply Strengthening international cooperation in the control of opium poppy cultivation Report of the Executive Director 1. In its resolution 45/10, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs called upon the United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) to strengthen its capacity in Afghanistan in the key thematic areas of drug control so that it could provide the necessary technical support, subject to the availability of voluntary resources, to mainstream drug control as a cross-cutting issue in reconstruction and development, giving priority to areas under opium poppy cultivation, and called upon the Executive Director to submit to the Commission at its forty-sixth session a report on the progress made in the implementation of the resolution. The present report is submitted pursuant to that request. 2. UNDCP has provided advisory and technical support to the Transitional Administration of Afghanistan and to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) to ensure that drug control is an integral part of all policies, strategies and projects implemented by the Administration, the United Nations and other international organizations. The overall strategy for development in Afghanistan included drug control as a cross-cutting issue. In that multidimensional context, UNDCP has focused its efforts on the following areas of drug control: policy support, legislation and advocacy; elimination of illicit crops; suppression of illicit drug trafficking; and the prevention and reduction of drug abuse. To ensure cost-effective delivery of assistance, UNDCP has focused on capacity-building for government institutions involved in drug control and has provided a range of advisory, training, support and technical services to that end. 3. As an initial means of helping to build the necessary governmental capacity,UNDCP functions as the secretariat to the Counter-Narcotics Department of the National Security Council and to the Transnational Administration’s working groups in the five thematic areas of drug control in Afghanistan: law enforcement; demand reduction; alternative livelihoods for poppy producers; judicial reform; and institution-building. The representative of the Programme also functioned as Special Adviser on Drugs to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan, ensuring close cooperation with UNAMA and the United Nations system. UNDCP plays a leading role in the coordination of drug control in Afghanistan in partnership with the Transitional Administration, UNAMA and donor countries. 4. UNDCP also provided support for the Transitional Administration in missions and meetings related to drug control. In its effort to strengthen the institutional capacity of the Counter-Narcotics Department of the National Security Council as well as that of other lead ministries, the Programme has provided expertise, policy drafting assistance and technical support. Likewise, it has continued to provide advisory and technical assistance to United Nations entities and other international and local institutions working in Afghanistan. 5. At the request of and in close cooperation with the Counter-Narcotics Department and as part of its overall strategy to build capacity, UNDCP has assisted in the creation of six joint provincial offices with the Transitional Administration that will make the provision of training and support to Afghan staff efficient and effective. 6. To the extent possible, UNDCP intends to place its international experts in the National Security Council and relevant line ministries in order to ensure the rapid transfer of technical knowledge and skills in drug control to Afghan nationals. 7. With regard to drug control legislation, UNDCP has assisted the Transitional Administration in the preparation and enactment of comprehensive drug legislation, modalities and structures. 8. UNDCP functioned as the secretariat of the Working Group on Law Enforcement, which endorsed the draft national drug control strategy. The Programme also assisted the National Security Adviser in the finalization and translation into Dari of the draft strategy for submission to the Cabinet. 9. As the secretariat of the Working Group on Alternative Livelihoods, UNDCP studied the potential positive role of micro-credit and other financing schemes to dissuade farmers from cultivating opium poppy. The Working Group worked on the improvement and standardization of the level of knowledge among its members on terminology, issues and strategies related to alternative livelihoods. 10. The Programme is working closely with the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development to create and maintain a database of district-level activities as alternative livelihoods for opium poppy producers with the aim of offering policy and planning advice and a better understanding of best practices. 11. A seminar was held in Kabul in December 2002 for the Working Group on Demand Reduction, with UNDCP functioning as secretariat, aimed at health officials and other drug abuse officials with a view to creating a better understanding of the drug demand situation among Afghan communities and of the extent of current service provision in the field of demand reduction. 12. UNDCP has pursued an integrated approach to demand reduction, bringing together key agencies in health care, education and community development for the purpose of training and coordination of services. 13. In an effort to provide a baseline for discussions on the extent and provincial distribution of opium poppy cultivation, to collect data on opium prices and to monitor the expansion or reduction of opium poppy cultivation, UNDCP has been working closely with the Transitional Administration to carry out an opium poppy survey. In addition, a farmers’ intention survey is expected to be launched soon. 14. As requested in resolution 45/10, UNDCP has been providing advisory and technical support to UNAMA to ensure that drug control is an integral part of all policies and strategies, as well as all projects implemented by the United Nations and other international organizations. 15. As called for in resolution 45/10, UNDCP has continued to cooperate with Member States and relevant international organizations to provide alternative livelihoods for opium poppy producers. At a first quadripartite meeting, which was attended by the representatives of the Transitional Administration of Afghanistan, the Governments of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and UNDCP, with the United States of America as observer, it was agreed to cooperate in providing alternative livelihoods for opium poppy producers.

432549

United Nations S/PV.4273 Security Council Fifty-sixth year 4273rd meeting Wednesday, 7 February 2001, 9.30 a.m. New York Provisional This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the interpretation of speeches delivered in the other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room C-178. 01-24135 (E) ````````` President: Mr. Ben Yahia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Tunisia) Members: Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Chowdhury China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Shen Guofang Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Valdivieso France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Levitte Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Ryan Jamaica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miss Durrant Mali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Ouane Mauritius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Neewoor Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Kolby Russian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Granovsky Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Mahbubani Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Kuchynski United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . . . . . Sir Jeremy Greenstock United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Cunningham Agenda The situation in the Great Lakes region Briefing by His Excellency Mr. Paul Kagame, President of the Rwandese Republic. The meeting was called to order at 10 a.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation in the Great Lakes region Briefing by His Excellency Mr. Paul Kagame, President of the Rwandese Republic The President (spoke in Arabic): In accordance with the understanding reached in the Council’s prior consultations, I request the Chief of Protocol to escort His Excellency Mr. Paul Kagame, President of the Rwandese Republic, to a seat at the Council table. Mr. Paul Kagame, President of the Rwandese Republic, was escorted to a seat at the Council table. The President (spoke in Arabic): The Security Council will now being its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Council is meeting in accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations. At this meeting the Security Council will hear a briefing by His Excellency Mr. Paul Kagame, President of the Rwandese Republic. On behalf of the members of the Council I welcome Mr. Kagame and convey to him our appreciation for his having accepted the Council’s invitation to engage in an exchange of views on the situation in the Great Lakes region, an issue to which the Council attaches great importance. I wish also to welcome His Excellency Secretary￾General Kofi Annan and to express our appreciation for his having accepted our invitation to attend today’s meeting. In view of time constraints, I would ask representatives to limit their interventions to questions or comments. I call on the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General: I have had the chance this morning to meet with President Kagame, and we have had a very good discussion. For the second time in less than one week, we are meeting again here in the Council to reaffirm our commitment to bringing peace and stability to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I believe the welcome presence of the President of Rwanda here today should strengthen our resolve to make the most of this opportunity for change and ensure that it gives us new impetus towards a final resolution of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. What is clear to this Council, and should be clear to all sides in the conflict, is that no country in the area can hope to enjoy stability while the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo continues and that all will benefit from its resolution. I therefore wish to commend President Kagame and President Kabila for the statesmanship they showed in meeting last week in Washington to discuss the challenges facing both countries and the entire area. There are difficult issues of governance, national dialogue, democracy, accountability and reconciliation that need to be addressed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in the region as a whole if there is to be a lasting solution in the Great Lakes. There is also the issue of the continued existence of predatory armed groups. Although there is no easy military solution to this dangerous phenomenon, those guilty of the worst atrocities of human rights abuses — and especially those guilty of genocide — must not be allowed to escape unpunished. We must understand that all the countries in the region, in particular Rwanda, have legitimate security concerns. Let me also commend the Government and the people of Rwanda for their efforts to build and renew their nation. Much remains to be done, however. The United Nations will continue to give whatever help it can to Rwanda in carrying out these tasks. In welcoming President Joseph Kabila during his brief visit last week, many members of the Security Council spoke of the need to seize this opportunity for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In addition, leaders throughout the region have responded to the latest developments in a way that suggests that they sincerely wish to implement the Lusaka Agreement in all its aspects. I hope we can build on this momentum and on the fact that no major ceasefire violations have been reported over the past two weeks. I would like to mention one step that will serve as an important confidence-building measure as the United Nations moves to help the parties carry out the disengagement plan signed in Harare in December. The Force Commander of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC), Major-General Diallo, is currently discussing with the authorities in Kigali and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo the withdrawal of Rwandan forces and their allies fromthe town of Pweto, on Lake Mweru in Katanga. We understand that substantial, if not complete, agreement has been reached. MONUC is ready to deploy a team of observers to the town once all the arrangements are in place. A withdrawal from Pweto by Rwanda and its allies in accordance with the Harare disengagement plan would help set the tone for the remainder of the disengagement plan. It would also represent an important step towards compliance with Security Council resolution 1304 (2000) of 16 June 2000, which calls for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In the report I intend to submit to the Council next week, I will propose a revised concept of operations for the deployment by MONUC. I will propose the deployment of additional personnel to monitor and verify the implementation by the parties of the Harare disengagement plan. Meanwhile, MONUC has already begun to take some initial steps which fall within the mandate approved by the Security Council in February 2000. Should the Council approve the revised concept, MONUC will be able to help the parties further in drawing back their forces from the confrontation line. This will reduce the risk of clashes and serve as a vital first step towards an eventual complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from the country. We may also be on the verge of a new and more constructive stage in the process of bringing an end to the conflict and instability in the region. We should, however, not lose sight of the scale of challenges that remain. Indeed, it is my profound hope that the resolution of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo will bring peace to the entire Great Lakes region and, in particular, to Rwanda. We are also taking urgent steps to re-energize the intra-Congolese dialogue and I hope the summit that is being planned in the region will focus on this aspect of the problem. I think a new opportunity has presented itself and I urge this Council and every country in the region to do everything possible to seize it. The President (spoke in Arabic): I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Paul Kagame, President of the Rwandese Republic. President Kagame: I thank the Secretary￾General for his introduction and I thank you, Mr. President, for your invitation to me to address this Council. I want to start by informing the Council that Rwanda has been trying to rebuild itself from the devastation caused by the genocide and other problems before that. Progress has been made in the area of the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the country, in matters of reconciliation, in dealing with the questions of justice and in the bigger problem of socio-economic development. However, this progress and the efforts behind it are being hampered by the general context in which this is happening — the context being what is happening in the region. This relates to the situation in the Congo, which I am sure many members of the Council have been following very closely. Without peace in the Congo and the countries of the region, development and this kind of progress definitely will not take place. However, there have been efforts before, and these efforts have continued in order to try to address these matters that would contribute to peace and stability in the region. That is why we later on reached the peace agreement in Lusaka, though at later stages it became difficult to have it implemented. So, it is true — I agree, as has been said, that there is a need to take advantage of the change that has taken place in the Congo, however tragic that was in its coming. I discussed with the new President, President Kabila, many issues relating to what we can all do in the region to bring about this peace. That mainly focused on the implementation of the Lusaka peace process. My country has the desire to fulfil its obligations as demanded by the Lusaka peace process, or even beyond that. There are really three core issues that must be addressed, in my view, in order to have the Lusaka process succeed. These are the issues on which the process was built. One is the inter-Congolese dialogue, which is talked about in the peace agreement. Hopefully this inter-Congolese dialogue will lead to a stable situation internally in the Congo so that problems will stop originating from the Congo and affecting the neighbouring countries. The second core issue is how the problem of former Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) and Interahamwe are addressed in this whole situation. This problem has been going on from May 1994 until this moment. It has been discussed in different forums, and we have always, unfortunately, fallen short of some practical ways of eradicating that problem. So, that is the second core issue. I think that the Lusaka peace process is built on it, and it needs to be taken forward. The third core issue is the withdrawal of foreign armies from the Congo. All three of these issues are addressed in the formula we have in the Lusaka peace process. If we go back to that and see what we can do to move the peace forward, then we most likely have a chance — with the change that has taken place in the Congo and with the statements that the new President has made about wanting to realize peace — not only in the Congo but also in the region. That is the impression I got from him when I was speaking with him. However, the two of us, and maybe a few others, having discussed this issue is not enough. I think that everybody needs to come to our assistance — the assistance of the Congo, of Rwanda, of the region — in order to support this process so that it can be implemented. I have no doubt that the Council will continue to play its role in finding a solution, or solutions, to many of these problems that I have mentioned. I continue to call upon the Council to be helpful not only in bringing about peace but also in supporting the region in terms of socio-economic development. With these few remarks, I look forward to the support of the Council, and I will be very ready to continue our discussion in case there are any questions. I will make whatever clarifications that might be required on these issues. The President (spoke in Arabic): I thank the President of the Rwandese Republic for his statement. I shall now give the floor to members of the Council to comment on the intervention by President Kagame. Mr. Cunningham (United States of America): It is a pleasure to see you here, Mr. President. Your presence testifies to the importance of our discussion today. We are pleased to welcome President Kagame back to the Council and have listened carefully to his remarks. When the Security Council met with President Kabila five days ago, I said that the Democratic Republic of the Congo has the right under the United Nations Charter to insist on the withdrawal of all foreign forces from its territory. I also said that the Government of Rwanda has a right under the United Nations Charter to insist that Congolese territory not be used as a launching pad for attacks against Rwanda. There are obvious mutual interests here that should form the basis for a discussion. We hope that President Kagame and his colleagues in the region can begin to work together, instead of against each other, to forge a common security regime. We do not believe that Rwanda can secure its long-term security interests via a policy of military opposition to the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Likewise, we do not believe that the withdrawal of foreign forces from the Democratic Republic of the Congo can be accomplished through military means. We believe that we are at the crossroads in the peace process. The Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and multiple Security Council resolutions constitute the expectations of the region and the international community. Now is the time to translate words into action. Now is the time for concrete steps. It is important that all parties cooperate in creating and sustaining the conditions necessary for the deployment of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC), something that we all want to see happen quickly and safely. It is also critical that the ceasefire hold, that no forward military movement occur and that the disengagement of forces begin. We welcome Rwanda’s readiness to withdraw from Pweto and urge that this offer be supported and immediately implemented. In addition to the priority of disengagement, we agree with the Secretary-General that Pweto represents a critical confidence-building measure and a barometer of political will. As we emphasized to President Kabila last week, all the Governments in the region have a common interest in neutralizing armed, non-State actors. We believe that lasting security for both Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo can come about only when their Governments build a cooperative relationship based on common interests, one that leads to the marginalization of the former Rwandan Armed Forces, Interahamwe and all other armed groups. In the case of the ex-FAR and Interahamwe, those under indictment by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda should be brought to justice, and the rest need to be offered a credible and voluntary process of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration or resettlement. We must be frank with President Kagame. The human rights situation in areas under Rwandan occupation or the control of the Congolese Rally for Democracy (RCD) is deeply troubling. Information from the United States Government, the United Nations, other Member States, Congolese civil society groups and international non-governmental organizations paints an alarming picture. Rwanda’s claims to the right of self-defence are badly undercut when so many Congolese civilians are victimized. We urge President Kagame to ensure that his forces and their Congolese allies respect fully the human and civil rights of the Congolese people. During his recent visit, President Kabila reaffirmed his support for the Lusaka process. We are hopeful that these positive statements will create new openings for a peace so that all sides can address the common security interests that can and should form the basis of lasting peace in the region. Mr. Levitte (France) (spoke in French): It is an honour and a great pleasure to see you, Sir, presiding over the Security Council meeting today. We are glad for the opportunity to hear President Kagame today, and we welcome the good proposals he has shared with us to settle the conflict. We have also noted with great interest the meeting a few days ago between President Kagame and President Kabila. That dialogue, if it continues, as we ardently hope it will, will bring us closer to a settlement of the conflict. These are encouraging signs at a time when, as the Secretary-General said last week and again today, a certain calm has returned to the conflict zones of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Today there is undoubtedly an opportunity to be seized to relaunch the Lusaka Agreement process. But how long will this last? Relaunching the Lusaka Agreement process and then finally proceeding to phase II of the deployment of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) requires the disengagement and withdrawal of foreign forces from the Democratic Republic of the Congo without further delay, pursuant to the accords signed by the parties to the conflict and to the relevant Security Council resolutions. I wish to recall that these resolutions, particularly Security Council 1304 (2000), state that that withdrawal should be progressive and phased and should begin with the withdrawal of troops of the uninvited States in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The States to which these resolutions apply cannot subject their implementation to conditions. The Security Council has already had the opportunity to emphasize that the presence of forces of aggression in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is unacceptable. It is the Council’s duty to recall everywhere and at all times the fundamental principles of the Charter: respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. We have noted the willingness expressed by the Rwandese authorities to withdraw their forces from Pweto once the MONUC observers arrive. The latter must be deployed quickly, and we will follow closely how Rwanda lives up to its commitment. That will be a first step in the right direction. I would also like to recall the concerns expressed by the Council about massive violations of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly in the eastern part of the country. There is also concern about information on large-scale plundering of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly in Kivu. In this connection, we all await with great interest the conclusions and recommendations of the panel of experts created by the Security Council, which must submit its report at the end of March. The return to stability in the region therefore requires first of all the implementation of the withdrawal of foreign forces. However, the internal aspect of the Lusaka Agreement is also necessary. In this connection, we welcome the encouraging commitments made by President Kabila, whose implementation we will follow with interest. It should be noted, nonetheless, that establishing an internal dialogue involving all political actors must not be confined to the Democratic Republic of the Congo alone. This is one of the keys to the settlement of the crisis for the region as a whole. President Kagame rightly emphasizes his concerns about security. His concerns are legitimate, and the Security Council is aware of Rwanda’s need to enjoy peace and stability within its borders that would not be jeopardized by foreign threats. We have all noted the efforts of the Rwandese authorities to settle the matter of the former Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR), and we are pleased to note that many of them have already been reintegrated intothe Rwandan Patriotic Army. We must continue in that direction. The matter of the ex-FAR and the Interahamwe militias will also undoubtedly have to be resolved, in part, between the Kinshasa and Kigali authorities. But assistance from the international community will also be needed. In this spirit, the Security Council has made it known that it is ready to envisage the deployment of MONUC personnel to Goma or Bukavu along the border with Rwanda. The coming weeks must enable long-overdue progress to be made in settling this conflict. The meeting between the Security Council and the Political Committee of the Lusaka Agreement in two weeks, and the meetings and summits preceding it, should, if all the parties to the conflict make the necessary efforts, lead to an irreversible process of disengagement and withdrawal that will bring us closer to a resolution of this crisis. On this point, I would like to assure President Kagame of France’s resolve to work for such a settlement, which must take into account the interests and legitimate concerns of all the parties involved. Miss Durrant (Jamaica): My delegation is honoured to see you, the Foreign Minister of Tunisia, presiding over today’s meeting, and we wish to thank you and your delegation for the tremendous interest you have displayed in the issues before the Council this month. The Jamaican delegation is please to join you, Mr. President, in welcoming President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, with whom the Security Council met last January. We appreciate his initiative to meet again with the Council and thank him for his important statement giving us his perspective on developments in the region. We note his express commitment to moving the peace process forward and the attention that he drew to the three core issues: the inter-Congolese dialogue, the need to address issues relating to the former Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) and Interahamwe and the withdrawal of foreign forces from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Last week the Council was addressed by President Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and we were assured of his commitment to relaunching the peace process. We view as a positive step and as a confidence-building measure the meeting held between President Kagame and President Kabila in Washington last week. My delegation’s appeal is for the leaders in the region to seek reconciliation and aim at bringing about a peaceful solution to the crisis, which is affecting all the countries in the Great Lakes region. For my delegation, the Lusaka Agreement remains the most viable option for peace and must be adhered to by all parties, since in our view there can be no military solution to the conflict. We note President Kagame’s appeal to the international community to seize the moment. My delegation hopes that all the signatories to the Lusaka Agreement will reaffirm their commitment to the process by abiding by the ceasefire and withdrawing troops from the Democratic Republic of the Congo in accordance with Security Council resolutions 1304 (2000) and 1332 (2000), in conformity with the stipulated time frame of the Ceasefire Agreement and the Kampala disengagement plan of April 2000 and with full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We agree that all Congolese must be fully engaged in the inter-Congolese dialogue, which is an important component of the Lusaka Agreement. This should also be an opportune time for the parties to recommit to the subsidiary plan for disengagement of the Harare agreement signed in December last year. As the Secretary-General indicated, the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) has already begun to take measures to support the disengagement, and the Secretary-General has informed us that he will be presenting to the Council later this month a revised concept of operations for the further deployment of MONUC as a basis for further action. Peace efforts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo cannot be allowed to fail, as the cost of such a failure would be too high a price to pay for the region as a whole. The conflict is exacting a terrible toll on the civilian population not only of the Democratic Republic of the Congo but of the entire region. We again emphasize the need for this issue to be addressed within the framework of a comprehensive peace involving the entire Great Lakes region. My delegation therefore welcomes the regional initiatives taken so far, and we look forward to the regional summit involving all the parties to the Lusaka Agreement, to be held later this month. We expect the meeting between the Security Council and the Political Committee of the Lusaka Agreement, also scheduled to take place this month, to benefit from the outcome and recommendations of the summit. In conclusion, my delegation wishes to emphasize that sustainable peace can be achieved only when all parties concerned rise above the differences which separate them and focus instead on the issues which unite them, and lay the groundwork for addressing the economic and social challenges facing the countries concerned. Mr. Chowdhury (Bangladesh): At the outset, Bangladesh would like to express its great pleasure at seeing you, Sir, preside over our deliberations. Your presence attests to the importance of today’s meeting. It is a special privilege for the Council to have His Excellency President Paul Kagame with us this morning. We are grateful to him for making the time to come here, despite his pressing schedule. Coming as it does a few days after our meeting with President Joseph Kabila, our interaction this morning with President Kagame offers an important opportunity to put the peace process in Central Africa back on track. We noted the three areas that he highlighted in this context. The statement by the Secretary-General outlined the areas where action needs to be focused. The Great Lakes region has been at the centre of the Council’s preoccupations for some time. We have seen various efforts being made at the United Nations and in the region to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. It is unfortunate that the immense suffering of millions and the colossal loss of resources have not brought about a significant change so far. Agreements are signed, certainly with the best intentions; but when it comes to implementation, there is little progress. In our meeting with President Kabila last week, we noted his determination to make fresh efforts to bring peace to the country, to hold free and fair elections and to extend full cooperation to the United Nations. We spoke of a new departure. We are happy to note that the urge to look towards the future is shared among the leadership in the region. We understand that efforts are being made for a regional meeting, possibly at the summit level, involving all signatories of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement. The Council should be supportive of such initiatives. It will be important to see substantive progress on the ground prior to our meeting with the Political Committee here later this month. We welcome President Kagame’s assertion that an opportunity exists and that it must be seized now. The Lusaka Agreement provides for a workable compromise for all parties and the subsequent plans detail concrete steps. In pursuing these agreements, the parties must take a realistic approach. The resolution of the most complex and the most intractable conflict of recent times will naturally require the most courageous decisions on the part of the leadership of the region. It will require hard concessions, difficult compromises and, above all, a lot of pragmatism. The security concerns of the neighbours of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and related issues, will need careful consideration. The imperative of justice should be pursued with the ultimate goal of healing past wounds and promoting reconciliation between societies. Peace has its costs, but the cost of war is certainly much higher. Given its immense natural and great human resources, the Great Lakes region can become an important positive force. The transition from senseless confrontation to regional cooperation is what the peoples of the region require. Their leaders can bring that about. Mr. Ouane (Mali) (spoke in French): Mali is delighted to see the Council meeting under your authority, Mr. Minister, to consider the situation in the Great Lakes region. I should like to welcome the presence today of His Excellency Mr. Paul Kagame, President of the Rwandese Republic, and of the Secretary-General and to thank them for their important statements. We listened carefully to President Kagame and to the Secretary-General, who, like President Kabila a few days ago, enabled us to glimpse some encouraging prospects for the resolution of the conflict in the Great Lakes region. The position of Mali on this issue is well known, and I would not like to repeat it here today. I shall therefore confine myself to making a few brief remarks, in deference to your wishes, Mr. President. First of all, I should like to underline the fact that Mali welcomes the new impetus for peace and offers its firm support for it. We believe that a lasting settlement of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo necessarily entails respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States. Secondly, we believe that the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and the Arusha peace agreement remain the viable bases for lasting peace in the Great Lakes region. In that connection, we call on all parties to show restraint and to cooperate fully in the implementation of those agreements and of the relevant Security Council resolutions. The time has come to put an end to a conflict that has persisted for too long and that has brought indescribable suffering to innocent people. Thirdly, I want to stress that we strongly encourage the continuation of the talks between President Kagame and President Joseph Kabila, which began last week at Washington, just as we support regional initiatives and the efforts of the Organization of African Unity and of the international community to put a final stop to the conflict in the Great Lakes region. I wish in conclusion to say that my delegation expects to make a useful contribution to the Security Council’s meeting with the members of the Political Committee of the Lusaka Agreement, to take place on 21 and 22 February, with a view to advancing the peace process. Mr. Ryan (Ireland): We welcome President Kagame to the Council today. Rwanda has suffered the pain of civil war and genocide. In Ireland, we understand the consequences of intercommunal violence and the difficulties of building trust and understanding between communities which have been engaged in deep and sustained violence. The Rwandan people and their Government have our full support and understanding in their struggle to build a free, secure, democratic and human-rights￾based society founded on equality and on respect for diversity. We would be very interested in hearing any comments from President Kagame on progress towards intercommunal reconciliation within Rwanda. Rwanda and the region will be unable to recover from their wounds while war continues in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; earlier, President Kagame rightly stressed that fact. Ireland subscribes fully to the stated position of the European Union, which is that lasting peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo can be achieved only through a negotiated peace settlement that is fair to all parties, through respect for the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and for democratic principles and human rights in all States in the region, and through taking account of the security interests of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and of neighbouring countries. We welcome the reassurance by President Kagame that Rwanda is ready to implement the Lusaka Agreement and to assist in bringing about an early and peaceful resolution of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. President Kagame has highlighted to us the three main challenges which he sees in this process. We recognize the security concerns which led to the presence of Rwandan troops on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and we agree that any lasting settlement will have to take account of the armed groups in the region, including members of the former Rwandan Armed Forces (ex￾FAR) and Interahamwe. However, we are not convinced that these concerns justify the extent of the current Rwandan military presence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The same reservation applies to the number and disposition of troops deployed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by other neighbouring countries, regardless of the reasons put forward for their presence. We join the Secretary-General in our interest in hearing from President Kagame about the timetable he would envisage for implementing the Harare disengagement plan, in particular when we can expect Rwandan troops to withdraw from Pueto, as we understand this to be under discussion between his Government and the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC). Ireland looks forward with anticipation to the report that the Secretary-General is now preparing, which will contain a revised concept of operations for MONUC. At the same time, we are concerned about any illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo by the various parties to the conflict. It is seriously damaging the international standing of those who are allegedly involved. We encourage all parties to give the United Nations panel of experts established to investigate this situation all the information it requires. We hope that Rwanda will build on the readiness, which is already shown, to cooperate with the panelin its work. The events of the past few days have given rise to a rare stirring of hope for the Congo and for the region as a whole. We still await the longed-for wind of change, but there is at least a sense of movement in the air. The visits to the United Nations of President Kagame and of President Joseph Kabila, and their meeting in Washington, have shown that the dynamic for peace can come from within the region itself. The Secretary-General earlier complimented the statesmanship which enabled that meeting to take place, and we agree with that. Ireland urges President Kagame to continue his contacts with all the parties to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We look forward to further progress in advance of the forthcoming New York meeting with the members of the Lusaka Political Committee. Sir Jeremy Greenstock (United Kingdom): Thank you, Mr. President, for leading us today. Your presence here, I think, testifies to the importance of this meeting. It is extremely good to have President Kagame with us. I think that, from the comments he has heard so far from around the Council table, he will have a very clear sense of where the Council is coming from. I do not want to make any real comments; I would like to put some questions to President Kagame, subscribing in particular to what the representative of Ireland has just said as a foundation for what I am going to say, coming as we both do, along with France, from the European Union’s position on this issue. In the past few days, since President Kagame’s meeting with President Joseph Kabila in Washington, we have had further discussions with the Congolese President and with his authorities. It is becoming clear to us that the new Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo accepts the principle of combined security for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for Rwanda and for Uganda, in particular – there are other States involved as well. They have indicated to us specifically that if the talks that are now beginning and that must continue – because dialogue is essential here – focus as a prime objective on the combined security of the Great Lakes countries, then they can see some progress being made. They will respect Rwanda’s legitimate interests if Rwanda respects theirs. I would very much like President Kagame’s confirmation that he accepts that as a basic principle of what we are going to try to do over the next few weeks, because certain things follow from that, and, of course, follow from what has already been written in terms of Council resolutions, the Lusaka accords and the disengagement agreements to which Rwanda is party. As a sub-question, President Kagame mentioned as one of his three core issues the need to settle the issue of the members of the former Rwandan Armed Forces (ex-FAR) and Interahamwe; could he indicate to us how many fighters bearing arms we are talking about? Some perhaps could be reabsorbed into the Rwanda Patriotic Army (RPA) or into Rwanda’s structures; some will not be. How many are we talking about, that President Kagame is concerned about? Secondly, does President Kagame accept the Secretary-General’s proposal of a first confidence￾building measure: withdrawal from Pueto by President Kagame’s forces, in combination with the deployment, by arrangement, of observers from the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)? I think that if President Kagame could take the first step in implementing the disengagement agreements we would begin to get somewhere. It would be extremely important and would put pressure on other parties to make balanced disengagements which get the thing going. And that, after all, is what we need in terms of the steps that have to be taken over the next few weeks. Thirdly, will President Kagame go to the Lusaka meeting, which, I understand, has been arranged for 12 February, of heads of State of the region? We believe that his presence there to continue these discussions is exceptionally important. And there, or elsewhere, will he meet President Joseph Kabila again soon? President Kabila has indicated to us that he wishes to continue his bilateral communication with President Kagame, and we would like President Kagame’s reciprocal agreement in principle to that. The next question is: Has President Kagame given instructions to his armed forces to respect Congolese property and to refrain from any exploitation of the mineral wealth of the Congo? That is a top requirement of the Security Council and we will be pursuing that. I hope that that is taken very seriously by his Government. Finally, will President Kagame take action, within the scope of his responsibility in practice in that region, for the protection of human rights and to ensure that child soldiers are not recruited into any military activity in the area of the Rwandan Patriotic Army’s operations? I think all these questions are very important for our discussions and I hope that we can make progress over the next few weeks leading up to the meeting on 21 and 22 February with the Political Committee in this Council. Mr. Mahbubani (Singapore): First, we would like to warmly welcome you, Mr. President, as you preside over our meeting this morning. We would also like to join our colleagues in welcoming warmly President Kagame to this meeting. Since you, Sir, have urged us to be brief in the interests of time, I will just mention three points this morning. The first point that is clear, especially after meeting President Kabila and now having met President Kagame, is that we have a unique window of opportunity to relaunch the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement. It is clear, judging from the atmosphere in this Chamber this morning and when we met President Kabila, that there is a certain expectation that we should take full advantage of this window of opportunity. In the nature of these things, however, this window of opportunity can close very fast, so we hope that if, as a result of this meeting, there is some forward momentum, we will have made a useful contribution. We would therefore urge all the parties concerned to make a serious and concerted effort to meet the increased expectations that have been generated by these two meetings. The second point I wish to make is that we are pleased that plans are under way to consider the deployment of phase II of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC). We believe that MONUC can be a key catalyst in changing things on the ground in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but for its deployment to take place, we need an effective ceasefire and the disengagement of all foreign forces. All the parties must adhere fully to the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and to the Harare disengagement plan. We also urge immediate implementation of relevant Council resolutions, particularly resolutions 1304 (2000) and 1332 (2000). My third and final point is that we agree, of course, with all those who have said that there can be no peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo until all foreign forces are withdrawn. However, a durable peace — again, as many have said this morning — cannot be achieved until the valid security concerns of all the parties have been addressed. We are also aware, listening to the remarks made this morning, that there is another complication. The vast territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo offers the potential for plunder, exploitation and extractive economic agendas. In this regard, we hope that all the parties involved in the issue of the Democratic Republic of the Congo will realize that the fruits of long-term economic development are much richer than the fruits of such short-term economic agendas, and we hope that all the parties involved will realize that, if we can move towards an effective peace process, all the parties involved in the Democratic Republic of the Congo will benefit. Mr. Valdivieso (Colombia) (spoke in Spanish): At the outset, I wish to convey our pleasure at seeing you, Sir, preside over this meeting. I also thank your delegation for having made the arrangements for us to meet today with the President of Rwanda. My delegation welcomes President Kagame warmly and thanks him for coming here to have this dialogue with the Council on the situation in the Great Lakes region and its implications for international peace and security. Last week in this Chamber, in connection with President Kabila’s visit, we expressed our firm resolve to defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and of the countries of the Great Lakes region. We also stated our clear intention to require the signatories of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement to fulfil their commitments to establish peace in the region and we expressed our desire to promote a swift deployment of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in favourable working conditions. Today, we would like to make precisely the same points to the President of Rwanda, because we feel that this is indeed a window of opportunity to promote peace in Africa. We were pleased to hear him speak of renewed support for the Lusaka process and for the United Nations presence in Congolese territory. We believe that this is the moment for the entire world to witness action being taken towards peace by the political leaders of the Great Lakes region, such as a ceasefire in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a disengagement of forces monitored by the United Nations, an orderly withdrawal of foreign forces and a normalization of the security situation along the borders. Two actions provided for in the Lusaka Agreement are of great importance to stability in the region. The first is the disarmament of the armed groups operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; the second is the repatriation of their members to their respective countries of origin. In this connection, we would greatly appreciate any remarks the President of Rwanda may wish to make on the repatriation of refugees and other persons of Rwandese origin currently living in Congolese territory. We recall with deep pain the events of 1994 in Rwanda, which gave rise to many of the problems currently engulfing the Great Lakes region. We believe that the proper administration of justice in Rwanda and gradual reconciliation among the Rwandese people are an inherent part of a lasting peace in the region. The course of justice must be firm towards the perpetrators of genocide so that the Rwandese communities can look to the future with confidence. As members of the international community, and in particular as members of this Council, we are prepared to offer and guarantee our assistance. Mr. Kolby (Norway): My delegation highly appreciates the fact that you, Sir, are presiding over this important meeting. My delegation joins the others in welcoming President Kagame to this meeting and wishes to thank him for his important statement. Norway has closely followed the developments in Rwanda after the genocide in 1994 and we remain committed to supporting democracy-building and humanitarian efforts in the country through the United Nations and other organizations. Norway has supported the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda since it was established and we firmly believe that those responsible for the genocide should be held accountable. The current situation in the Great Lakes region is closely linked with what happened in 1994, and I appreciate the opportunity for the Security Council to meet with President Kagame to discuss the way forward in the context of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement. The Lusaka Agreement continues to be the path towards a peaceful solution to the complex conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Great Lakes region. Recent statements from African leaders have created a new situation, which must be utilized to further facilitate peace. There is now, as has been stated, a window of opportunity. The meeting later this month between the Political Committee of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and the Security Council is a timely and an important opportunity in this regard. We urge the parties to explore thoroughly, through regional consultations prior to that meeting, any political avenues that might be available for further consideration at the meeting. In this light we note with interest the contact in Washington last week between President Kagame and President Joseph Kabila. Last Friday, President Kabila addressed the Security Council, and we noted his desire to pursue a policy of reconciliation. We believe that full commitment to peaceful negotiations remains indispensable in the search for a lasting solution to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Great Lakes region. I would like to reiterate the support of the Government of Norway for the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement. The Agreement states that nothing in the Agreement shall in any way undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It further states that the parties to the Agreement must commit themselves to immediately addressing the security concerns of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its neighbouring countries. This means that all foreign forces must withdraw from the Democratic Republic of the Congo according to schedules drawn up by the United Nations, the Organization of African Unity and the Joint Military Commission. It also means that there are legitimate security concerns that have to be addressed jointly by the parties and the international community. At the same time, while expressing understanding for the precarious security situation that Rwanda is facing, my Government is of the opinion that this cannot justify deploying Rwandan troops — or Ugandan troops, for that matter — several hundred kilometres inside the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Full deployment of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) as soon as the security situation allows will be an important step in safeguarding Rwanda’s and other countries’ security concerns. Any support provided to the “negative forces”, which the former Rwandan Armed Forces (ex￾FAR) and Interahamwe represent, must cease immediately in order to facilitate the peace process. Furthermore, the efforts to rebuild peaceful relations in the Great Lakes region must take due account of the ongoing illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We urge all parties to the conflict to cooperate constructively with the United Nations Expert Panel established for this purpose. The high-level diplomatic activity during the last few months is an indication of the willingness of African leaders and leaders from other countries to support the peace efforts in the Great Lakes region. In conclusion, permit me to urge the parties to exercise the necessary flexibility in the search for a political solution to the conflict. The United Nations must stand ready to facilitate this important process. Mr. Granovsky (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): Your participation, Mr. President, in this meeting of the Security Council today shows how important the situation in the Great Lakes region is in the Council’s agenda. May I greet His Excellency President Paul Kagame of the Rwandese Republic and express gratitude to him for his readiness to meet with members of the Council in order to exchange opinions on the problem of settling the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Our fundamental position in favour of the earliest possible political settlement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the basis of the preservation of the territorial integrity of that country in accordance with the Lusaka and subsequent agreements, and also in accordance with Security Council resolutions 1304 (2000) and 1332 (2000), remains unchanged. We in Russia are closely following the development of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo after the recent tragic event there. We note with satisfaction that the new leadership of the Democratic Republic of the Congo confirms its dedication to a settlement of the conflict on the basis of the Lusaka Agreement and expresses its readiness to enter into dialogue with its neighbours on the issue of ensuring security in the subregion and to achieve national reconciliation and democratization in its country by opening up the inter-Congolese dialogue. We hope that in the near future these statements will be given tangible confirmation, and we call on all States engaged in the conflict not to miss the window of opportunity offered for a renewal of the peace process. It is essential to break the vicious circle of mutual distrust and take genuine steps towards a settlement of the conflict. In this context we welcome the readiness of the Rwandan leadership to start a withdrawal of forces from the Pweto region, one of the most likely to flare up. We also call upon the other parties to the conflict to fulfil their obligations under the disengagement plan and to refrain from activities that might lead to a further destabilization of the situation. In general we attach the greatest importance to the earliest possible withdrawal of all foreign troops from the Democratic Republic of the Congo under the time frame of the Lusaka Agreement, on the understanding that, as required by Security Council resolutions 1304 (2000) and 1332 (2000), this process should start with a withdrawal of those forces that entered the Democratic Republic of the Congo without the invitation of the Government. Of course, we fully recognize that the long-term settlement of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in the Great Lakes region of Africa is impossible without a solution of the illegal armed groups. We call upon all parties to the conflict to cooperate in ensuring the disarmament, demobilization, reintegration and repatriation of members of the illegal armed groups in order to create conditions for security for all the countries of the subregion. At the same time, we would like to emphasize that from our viewpoint, solving this problem by force is impossible. For the process to be successful, it must be based upon a democratization of political life and a solution of inter￾ethnic problems, not only in the Democratic Republic of the Congo but in all neighbouring countries. We are particularly alarmed by reports of mass violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which are not under Government control. We call upon those who are concerned not to allow such violations and to cooperate with international humanitarian personnel by providing free access to all those in need of assistance. This month the Council has to review the fulfilment by the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) of its mandate in that country. This entails an analysis of the extent to which the parties to the conflict are cooperating with the Mission and are fulfilling their obligations concerning ceasefire and disengagement of armed forces. If the results of this review show that the parties are filled with a genuine political will to carry out these tasks, this will undoubtedly help the Security Council in considering the deployment of the second phase of MONUC peacekeeping operations. Mr. Wang Donghua (China) (spoke in Chinese): The Chinese delegation is pleased to see you, Sir, presiding over today’s meeting. We also appreciate the Secretary-General’s presence and his important statement. The Chinese delegation welcomes President Kagame to the Council and his exchange of views with Council members on the situation in the Great Lakes region. Several days ago, Council members had a candid exchange of views with President Joseph Kabila, President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, on the conflict in that country. China believes that such an exchange of views is conducive to the efforts of the parties in the region to seek peace there. Turmoil and conflict in the Great Lakes region are attributable to profound historical ethnic factors and also involve poverty, intrinsic contradictions and external intervention. From the tragic genocide in Rwanda in 1994 to the ongoing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, we have been able to see that these contradictions and factors have interacted and are interlinked. Various parties have repeatedly emphasized that a coordinated and comprehensive strategy must be adopted to deal with the situation in the Great Lakes region. Only when peace and stability are restored to the entire Great Lakes region can peace and stability in the countries of the region be guaranteed. No country can possibly build its own peace and development on its neighbours’ wars and conflicts. Therefore, the Chinese side hopes that every country in the region will seize the opportunity to use political judgement and decide to settle the conflict peacefully through dialogue and consultation. The new Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has repeatedly emphasized its commitment to relaunching the Lusaka peace process, to conducting political dialogue and to cooperating fully with the United Nations. China hopes that the parties concerned will respond positively to that and prove to the international community with actual deeds their sincere desire to seek peace. The Chinese delegation wishes to emphasize three points. First, the inter-Congolese dialogue is critical for the advancement of the Congolese peace process. However, that dialogue should be free of external intervention or interference, not to mention military intervention. Secondly, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo must be respected. This is a principle that every Member of the United Nations should observe. Thirdly, security in the border areas between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the countries concerned should be guaranteed. We also believe that the achievement of peace and stability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its neighbouring countries represents the biggest challenge before the United Nations. The positive roles of the United Nations and the Security Council are crucial for the early realization of peace in the Great Lakes region. China supports the Security Council’s taking concrete measures, increasing inputs and deploying peacekeepers to the border areas of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and the other countries concerned as soon as possible, when conditions permit, in order to address the security concerns of the relevant countries and facilitate the settlement of the conflict. Mr. Neewoor (Mauritius): First of all, I wish to thank you, Mr. Minister, for presiding over this important meeting. The delegation of Mauritius is very pleased to welcome Mr. Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, to the Security Council Chamber this morning. We thank the President for his important briefing. In the wake of the recent tragic event in Kinshasa, the Security Council received guarantees from Rwanda that it did not intend to take advantage of the situation. Similar guarantees were also received from Uganda. We are glad that these guarantees have been respected, and on that account, the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo continues to remain largely peaceful. There is no doubt that the Lusaka Agreement constitutes the only basis for peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and, indeed, in the whole Great Lakes region. Last Friday the new President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in his statement to the Security Council, reconfirmed his country’s commitment to move the Lusaka process forward and to actively pursue the inter- Congolese dialogue. We would like to see all the parties to the conflict reaffirm their commitments similarly. We believe there is today an excellent opportunity for peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in the Great Lakes region. Indeed, for the last few weeks we have been hearing statements of commitment from the parties to the conflict to move the Lusaka process forward. Now is the time for these statements to be translated into concrete action by all those concerned. In this regard, the highest priority undoubtedly is the implementation of the disengagement plan signed in Harare in December. In this regard, we have noted with satisfaction that Rwanda has offered to go beyond the provisions of the disengagement plan and withdraw its forces to a distance of up to 200 miles. We welcome this positive commitment by Rwanda. Our goal, of course, is to bring about the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the Democratic Republic of the Congo at the earliest. We are confident that the meeting of heads of State of the region in the coming days will add new impetus to the momentum already created to advance the Lusaka process. We call for the earliest deployment of phase II of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in accordance with Security Council resolution 1332 (2000). The dire conditions prevailing in the Great Lakes region are largely a result of the illegal circulation of and trafficking in small arms and light weapons and the use of mineral and other resources for financing paramilitary and organized rebel groups. We are therefore looking forward to the report and the findings of the United Nations panel on illegal exploitation of natural resources and other sources of wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is due next month. We are extremely concerned by the humanitarian situation arising from the instability in the Great Lakes region. All the countries of this region face the problems of refugees and internally displaced persons. Although the humanitarian relief agencies are doing a commendable job in alleviating their suffering, we would like to see the international community make more efforts to provide further assistance to these people, who find themselves in dire economic conditions. But there is no doubt that only when peace and stability are firmly established in all the countries of the region will the end of human suffering be ensured. In conclusion, my delegation would like to add that no progress can be achieved unless the leaders of the Great Lakes region show their determination, will and commitment to engage fully in bringing stability and peace to the region. We believe that the time to do so is now. Mr. Kuchynski (Ukraine): It is a great pleasure to see you, Mr. Minister, presiding over our meeting. We would also like to join previous speakers in welcoming President Paul Kagame to this Chamber and thanking him for his very important, comprehensive and constructive briefing. As is known, and as has been clearly confirmed by President Kagame, security in the Great Lakes region depends directly on the security situation in each individual country. The general analysis of the situation proves that the main causes of conflict in the region, as well as of overall instability, are ethnic divergence, weak political governance linked to the lack of national dialogue, the presence of uncontrolled armed groups, flows of refugees, fluid borders and poverty. In this regard, we would like to put special emphasis on the problem of fluid borders between countries, which has become one of the main causes of insecurity in the whole region. This factor leads to the uncontrolled movement of armed groups and refugees and does not contribute to creating a favourable political environment for strengthening national dialogue. In this regard, we would like to underline the crucial role to be played by the international community in resolving the problem through the elaboration of a comprehensive regional strategy. The resolution of specific conflicts in the area, in particular in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Burundi, requires regional approaches involving a wide range of existing confidence-building mechanisms. In this context, we entirely support the idea of convening an international conference on the Great Lakes region, under the auspices of the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity, which could be become an important step towards the elaboration of a constructive, comprehensive, regional approach to address the problems. At the same time, we believe that the effectiveness of international support for the maintenance of peace and security depends on the implementation by the parties to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo of their commitments in the framework of the Lusaka Agreement and other peace arrangements, and their readiness for national reconciliation and dialogue. The crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo generates the main context of general insecurity in the Great Lakes region and has a very negative impact on the fragile peace in the Central African Republic and on the peace process in Burundi. It should be recognized that without the restoration of peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there can be no lasting solution to the crisis in that part of the world. I would like to reiterate the position of my Government by underlying the need for the implementation of the Lusaka Agreement and all relevant resolutions by all the parties as the key to the settlement of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the restoration of sustainable peace in the whole area. We welcome the outcome of the meeting between President Paul Kagame and President Joseph Kabila in Washington last week, at which the parties reaffirmed their commitment to a constructive dialogue aimed at resolving existing differences. We are convinced — and this has been stressed by members of the Council today — that there can be no military solution to the most complex conflicts in Africa. We urge the leadership of the countries in the area to take a pragmatic approach towards the peace process, to become good neighbours and to cooperate fully for the sake of progress and peace in Africa. The President (spoke in Arabic): I shall now make a statement in my capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Tunisia. The Security Council’s preoccupation with the Great Lakes region is clear; it is attested to by the many meetings scheduled this month to address the situation there. I should like to single out in particular the meeting with the Political Committee of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement to discuss the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We hope that these meetings will have practical results that contribute to reactivating the peace process and fulfilling the aspirations of all the people to peace, security, stability and progress. The Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, which supports the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and provides for the establishment of conditions conducive to security and stability for neighbouring countries, remains the best framework for arriving at a negotiated settlement to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We expect the parties to the Agreement to prove their commitment to the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. We believe that circumstances are favourable for giving a new impetus to the peace process. The international community is called upon to encourage all the parties concerned and to help them build the pillars of lasting peace in the region, including by providing assurances to the parties concerned about their security and stability, thereby improving the opportunities for conciliation, solidarity, cooperation and development in the continent. We look forward to the earliest possible deployment of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This will translate into action the determination of the international community to shoulder its responsibilities with regard to the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the region as a whole. We sense that there is a desire to move towards peace. We expect the parties concerned to undertake the practical steps necessary for the realization of that objective. Tunisia supports and encourages each and every initiative undertaken by Rwanda or any other party aimed at dialogue, conciliation and cooperation in the framework of mutual respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of each State in the region. We welcomed President Kagame’s meeting last week with President Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We hope that the dialogue will continue and advance in the interest of the peoples of Rwanda, of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and of the entire region, who yearn for a better tomorrow. For years, Tunisia has been following developments in the Great Lakes region. Notably during its presidency of the Organization of African Unity in 1994 and 1995, Tunisia contributed to African efforts to ease tension in the Great Lakes region and to bring about rapprochement among the States of that region. President Ben Ali has taken numerous initiatives to that end. Tunisia has consistently supported all peace processes on the African continent, and hopes that they will help strengthen peace, security, stability, development and cooperation in the region. I now resume my functions as President of the Security Council. I call on His Excellency Mr. Paul Kagame, President of the Rwandese Republic, to respond to the comments that have been made and the questions that have been raised. President Kagame: I am grateful for this additional opportunity to talk about the very important issues that have brought us here today. I have listened with great interest to the various serious concerns so well articulated by members of the Council with respect to the situation in the Great Lakes region, and to proposals concerning how we should be dealing with that situation. I would respond by saying that most of those concerns are genuine; some of them are correct, others are not fully correct, and still others are perhaps lacking in facts or information. I shall try to address as many as I can on that basis. First of all, in my view, most of the concerns that have been raised will in fact be addressed and dealt with if we focus on implementing the peace process that was agreed on at Lusaka. Sometimes, taking up issues in a very fragmented way is not very helpful in addressing the whole situation in a comprehensive way. Lusaka talks about all the things we have been discussing: it talks about disengagement; it talks about withdrawal of forces. With withdrawal and other things taking place, most likely there will be no forces on the ground to blame for one thing or another. I think that some of the problems exist because we have failed to do the most important thing: to try to focus all our energy on making sure that the peace process is implemented. Sometimes we have not been able to differentiate between those who openly and clearly are violating the ceasefire and the peace process and those who have tried to meet their obligations. Sometimes measures have been taken that in actual fact cause, in one way or another, a delay in the whole peace process by trying to revise what had been agreed to by everybody – the signatories of the peace process. For example, we spend so much time talking about “invited” and “uninvited” forces, when in actual fact the peace process, signed by everybody, says that all forces must withdraw. Then somebody decides to begin an argument about “invited” and “uninvited” forces; this adds to the length of time that should be spent on discussing the most important issues and on perhaps reaching an agreement on them. I think the issue is clear under the Lusaka peace process. Everybody, including the President of the Congo and the Government of the Congo, is a signatory; they agreed to the total withdrawal of forces. Actually, that is the most crucial thing — if it had happened at the time it was supposed to have happened. The issues of who goes first, who goes last and who does what have been introduced by somebody; that causes delays of its own, and we accept that. That is one problem. On the issue of withdrawal, Rwanda is ready to withdraw its forces as agreed under Lusaka, and in conjunction with other problems being resolved — because forces came into the Congo for a certain reason, and Lusaka also addresses that reason. This should be taking place if we are serious about the implementation of the peace process — and Rwanda in particular is serious about the implementation of that process. At one point we even offered suggestions for trying to speed up implementation. For example, somebody talked about the proposal put forward by Rwanda when the disengagement that had been agreed on was not taking place: Rwanda decided unilaterally to take measures that would support the peace process by withdrawing its forces 200 kilometres, pulling them back towards Rwanda’s border. Failure of that was caused by the Government of the Congo. In fact, the Congo itself did not even deny it; it was clear and open. We are still ready to take some of these initiatives, which would help advance the peace process. But that is not an end in itself; our pulling back or doing other things does not constitute an end in itself. The end is for everybody eventually to do what they are supposed to do and what they are asked to do in the peace process. I want quickly to address some of the other concerns that have been voiced, for example the human rights problems that have been talked about. This is a problem. In actual fact, the background of the problem we have in the Congo is the violation of human rights. That is the background. That is what we are trying to address, but I would rather look at it more comprehensively by saying that the human rights violations in eastern Congo are as bad as those in the west, north and south of the Congo. I would not advise the Council to discriminate about violations of human rights. The violations of human rights have been taking place in different forms throughout the territory of the Congo — in Kinshasa, in Lubumbashi, in northern Katanga and in northern Kasai. One of the reasons for the failure of our withdrawal, when we tried to do it, was actually the violations of human rights by the Government. This withdrawal failed because of a number of things. We wanted and requested United Nations observers to come and be placed in some areas. Clearly, their numbers were not sufficient, so perhaps they needed to be brought into some specific, important areas to observe our withdrawal and events following it. The United Nations was not able to deploy in time, so we asked whether we should actually continue and do it without the United Nations deployment. There was an agreement that we could withdraw. When we withdrew our forces, the forces of Kabila moved into areas where we had been and killed people in northern Katanga and northern Kasai because the population was being accused of having been collaborators with the rebels who are fighting the Government or with Rwanda. There was therefore a mass movement of people following our forces, running away from the areas from which we had withdrawn. This was something we had expected; we had wanted the United Nations observers to be there, to observe and to be able to apportion responsibility and place it where it belonged. So violations are taking place throughout the Congo. When we see on television people being shot and thrown in the rivers in Kinshasa, this must be talked about. These are very serious violations of human rights. In the eastern Congo, where we are deployed, there have been violations of human rights by the many forces that are operating in that area, which we have actually been fighting: the Mai-Mai, the members of the former Rwandan Armed Forces, the Interahamwe and the other groups. We have sometimes asked the rebel forces to look into that and to bring to book their own forces who may have been involved in it. The Government of Rwanda does not hesitate to take action against any of its members who get involved in any violations of human rights. This can be attested to by the courts in Rwanda that handle these cases. Individuals who have committed human rights violations are apprehended, brought to Rwanda and tried by the courts. This is done in broad daylight. We do not condone violations of human rights. We have not been able, however, to control every household, every road and every forest to ensure that nothing happens. Most of the things that happen are happening because of the forces that are not controlled. Unfortunately, this is a situation that we have had to live with for quite a long time and that is the background of why we are in the Congo in the first place. It has been to try to fight this kind of thing and to ensure that it does not happen. On the question of humanitarian aid workers, I am surprised that it is not known that the forces from Rwanda are actually about the only friends they have in that situation. They are the ones who are on their side, protecting them. The other problem is that they are not even there; actually, they do not come. I wish these humanitarian workers were there to help the population. They are not there. They are scattered; they are very few. There should be more than there are today to help in that situation, and we shall continue to try and help as much as our limited capacity allows. Of course, sometimes people hear of violations of human rights. They do not fully understand to whom they are attributed. The other day, not long ago, somebody was accusing our country of violating human rights in Bunia, killing the people there. It took me a long time to convince these people that there is not a single Rwandan deployed in Bunia. This is an area that is totally different from where we are deployed, but somebody there is writing accusations that Rwanda is violating human rights in Bunia. Yes, there are violations of human rights taking place in Bunia, problems between the Lendu and the Hema that we have all read about in the papers. We are not there. Rwanda is not deployed in Bunia — not a single soldier. I really wish to put some of these things in the right perspective because this Council, unfortunately, does not always have credible sources of information. The United Nations has a presence in the Congo — a Mission authorized by this Council. I think some of these things should be brought to light in a better way. As to the exploitation of resources, which many people have talked about — it should not be there. I would also ask the Council, when it finds the time and if it finds it appropriate to do so, to help us to define what the term “illegal exploitation of the resources of the Congo” means. It seems that people have different understandings about this term. I am sure there may be people rightly accused of exploiting resources in the Congo, but from the stories I have heard it is not really black and white. I think there is a grey area that needs to be sorted out. For example, there has been talk about exploitation of diamonds and gold. We shall convey all the information we have to the commission that has been established. I am glad that the commission has been established to look into that, but it will serve this Council very well if the commission acts professionally, thoroughly and objectively, and not politically, in looking at the problem. It is my personal view that, sometimes, some of these problems have tended to be diversionary — they take us away from the real issues that we should be addressing and do not help us to prevent some of these things from happening. We know of some cases — and we shall be happy to inform the committee concerned — in which there have been people trading in diamonds and gold for the last 15 years in the eastern Congo — going through Burundi, going through Rwanda, going through everywhere — and they are still in that business. They are doing it with the Congolese. If the rebels who are in the Congo are also illegal Congolese and cannot therefore do anything in that territory with people who have been doing that business all the time, it is an issue and an area that the Council could help to clear up, so as to really know what we are talking about when everybody is on board. We shall be glad to make our own contributions to clear the air about illegal exploitation of resources, which has tended to take us away from dealing with the main theme: the peace issue, with the security issues and with the withdrawal of forces, and getting out of this situation. We shall be able to engage the committee and provide whatever support and information they require from our country. They have already learned that. They have come, and we have talked to them. I do not know whether they found us lacking in any way — I have not been informed about that. We are ready to continue. The other thing is that they could be very helpful if they, in our case, have things to really compare. If today they have figures about how many suspect diamonds or how much suspect gold is being exported by Rwanda, then we would very much appreciate that information, because this can easily be looked for and found. This would help us to know the actual extent to which the issue that is being highlighted has gone. Insofar as Rwanda is concerned, I think that there has been an exaggeration about this issue. I think that there is a grey area that is not well defined and that I would request the Council to help us define so that we all fully understand what we are talking about and so that we can see whether we are rightly being accused or whether more explanation is needed. If I may talk about the former Rwandan Armed Forces (ex-FAR) and Interahamwe, somebody was interested in the numbers. The numbers are one important aspect to find out about and to know. But the other very important aspect that is important to know is not so much the numbers as it is the very fact that there are Governments and people that are turning these numbers into a threat by giving arms and training and by associating with it. I think that this is very crucial, and we should not lose track of that by just talking about numbers. This Council has been involved with so many resolutions about the ex-FAR and Interahamwe, the genocide suspects and how past resolutions to deal with that are to be put in practice. I have always wondered why there have been shortcomings in even following up, as one way of actually dealing with this problem, to make sure that nobody actually associates with these groups. This Council has done that in the case of Angola, with UNITA. They have threatened sanctions. They have done everything for the countries, for individuals and for groups that we associate with UNITA, and they think that has helped in that situation. When it comes to the ex-FAR and Interahamwe, there is condemnation and understanding that they create security problems, but it always falls short of having clarity on the question of how you deal with the people who associate with these groups and that make them a security threat to Rwanda. So, I really hope that the Council will also help us to address that problem; otherwise, with numbers it is hard to be very specific. I am sure that the precise numbers are mainly with those who are using them or who have been helping them. I am sure that in giving them arms and giving them clothes and food, they have numbers. We do not have precise information, but we think that, given what we have been noticing on the ground and what we get from those we have been able to capture at the front line when they are fighting, the figure would be about 15,000 of them. But again, this is not the only issue. The issue is taking this 15,000 and adding other forces that constitute a problem for our country. If it were just about numbers this would be easy. In 1997 we repatriated 2 million of our refugees; among them there were over 40,000 ex-FAR and militia. We reintegrated them into the rest of the society. We have reintegrated over 15,000 former soldiers in our own army. So this is not a problem. The problem is that these others stayed out, and they are being helped to become a threat to our country. That is where the issue lies. That issue must be addressed if we are to finally realize security on both sides. We need to look at security issues on all sides, and that is really something that would be easier to do. We are ready. Once we have gone through with the implementation of the Lusaka peace process, the big countries in the region should get together and think of how we can create a framework on a permanent basis that will address security issues in the region. This has happened in other regions; I do not see why it cannot serve us as well. But this is something that will come once we have overcome this crucial stage of moving ahead to implement what we have already agreed to in the peace process. Otherwise, we will continue with our endeavours to try to achieve peace, whether it is through the Lusaka framework or through talking to different individuals that can make a valuable contribution to realizing final peace. We shall continue to engage the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, under Joseph Kabila. We shall always be open, and we shall be ready to work with other countries in the region towards this objective of realizing peace in our region. Once again, I am very happy for this opportunity to clear up some of the issues that have been raised, but I remain available to go on with whatever I might not have covered fully. The President (spoke in Arabic): I thank President Kagame for the clarifications he has provided. I would also like to thank all the delegations that participated in our debate for their kind words addressed to me and to my country. There are no further speakers on my list. The Security Council has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda. The meeting rose at 12.05 p.m.

520748

United Nations S/2004/338 Security Council Distr.: General 3 May 2004 Original: English 04-33615 (E) 040504 *0433615* Letter dated 28 April 2004 from the Permanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General I have the honour to draw your attention to the statement on legislative elections in Indonesia, issued on 26 April 2004 by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union (see annex). I would be grateful if the text of this letter and its annex could be circulated as a document of the Security Council. (Signed) Richard Ryan Permanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations Annex to the letter dated 28 April 2004 from the Permanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General [Original: English and French] Statement on legislative elections in Indonesia issued on 26 April 2004 by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union The European Union has followed the legislative elections in Indonesia for several representative bodies on 5 April last with great interest. The elections were among the largest ever organized anywhere in the world and the organization was a monumental logistical task for the National Electoral Commission as more than 650 million ballot papers needed to be prepared and distributed and voting for four representative bodies took place at almost 600,000 voting stations. Although the official results of the elections will not be known for some time, the European Union takes the opportunity to congratulate the people and the Government of Indonesia on the generally peaceful and competitive way in which the pre-election process and polling have taken place, and hopes that the coming presidential elections can be conducted in the same positive manner. More than 200 independent European Union observers were stationed in the country to follow the election process. The European Union expresses its great appreciation for the work of the European Union Election Observation Mission, led by Glyn Ford, which provided a comprehensive statement on the electoral process in Indonesia. The European Union, through the continued efforts of the European Union Election Observation Mission, will continue to follow the coming presidential elections with great attention as well. The European Union notes with great satisfaction that the elections have taken place in a positive spirit. Overall the elections appear to have been a success, although the preparations were marked by shortcomings and delays, especially in the production and distribution of ballot papers, and on election day there were a few delays and postponements in isolated parts of the country. The process appears to have been conducted peacefully, except for some incidents reported from Aceh. Regretfully, it was not possible for observers to observe fully in the province, so that information on Aceh’s elections remains scarce. The European Union expresses the hope that during the coming presidential elections its observers will be able to observe fully the election process. The acceding countries Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, the candidate countries Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey, the countries of the stabilization and association process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the EFTA countries Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, align themselves with this statement.

581103

United Nations S/2006/10/Add.26 Security Council Distr.: General 14 July 2006 Original: English 06-45057 (E) 140806 *0645057* Summary statement by the Secretary-General on matters of which the Security Council is seized and on the stage reached in their consideration Addendum Pursuant to rule 11 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, the Secretary-General is submitting the following summary statement. The list of items of which the Security Council is seized is contained in documents S/2006/10 of 1 March 2006, S/2006/10/Add.12 of 7 April 2006, S/2006/10/Add.15 of 28 April 2006, S/2006/10/Add.16 of 5 May 2006, S/2006/10/Add.21 of 9 June 2006 and S/2006/10/Add.24 of 30 June 2006. During the week ending 8 July 2006, the Security Council took action on the following item: Security Council mission (see S/2003/40/Add.24, 27, 29 and 45; S/2004/20/Add.3, 7, 26, 28, 48 and 49; S/2005/15/Add.15, 18, 45 and 48; and S/2006/10/Add.23 and 25) The Security Council resumed its consideration of the item at its 5482nd meeting, held on 6 July 2006 in accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations, having before it the report of the Security Council mission on the electoral process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (S/2006/434). The President, with the consent of the Council, invited the representatives of Belgium, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Finland, at their request, to participate in the consideration of the item without the right to vote.

575569

United Nations S/2006/302 Security Council Distr.: General 18 May 2006 Original: English 06-35372 (E) 190506 *0635372* Letter dated 17 May 2006 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Sudan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council I have the honour to forward for your attention a statement by Ali Osman Mohamed Taha, the Vice-President of the Republic of the Sudan regarding measures to improve the situation in Darfur (see annex). I would highly appreciate it if this letter and its annex could be circulated as a document of the Security Council. (Signed) Omar B. Manis Chargé d’affaires a.i. Annex to the letter dated 17 May 2006 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the PermanentMission of the Sudan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council The attainment of comprehensive peace in all parts of the country remains a strategic national objective, one which we have been exerting keen efforts to realize. The recent signing of the Abuja Peace Agreement by the Government of National Unity represents yet another milestone, and a national achievement along our path towards peace in the Sudan. The signing of the peace agreement means the following: • Bringing an end to war and bloodshed • Addressing the humanitarian repercussions of war, the most important of which are the issues of displacement, migration and refugees • Achieving reconstruction and development • Releasing national energies to achieve sustainable development and well-being of citizens. In the light of the above, it gives me great pleasure to announce to the Sudanese people the following measures and policies in the humanitarian field, which underscore the focal role of humanitarian considerations in peacebuilding. The taste of peace must also be savoured by those who have been denied it. First: The allocation of 20,000 metric tons of food to the World Food Programme (WFP). This will help to fill the gap in food that has led to reducing by half the quotas of those targeted within the three coming months. This will restore the quotas to their full quantity. I hereby direct the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and the Ministry of Finance to immediately execute these directives. I would like to thank all donors who have lent or announced their support, and all United Nations agencies working in Darfur. I call upon all brotherly Arab and Islamic countries to continue lending their solidarity and support. I call upon the Sudanese people to lead a public campaign for the support of their people in Darfur. Second: I would like to call upon all concerned Governments and state governments and our partners in peace and humanitarian action to work together to help to implement an emergency limited term relief plan to address the humanitarian repercussions resulting from war, which will guarantee achieving the following two main objectives: (a) Normalization of civil life in Darfur states; (b) Achieve an expeditious transition to reconstruction and rehabilitation. Third: I announce the firm commitment of the Government to provide all available facilities for the organizations working in Darfur, and hereby reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the fast track policy for humanitarian activities, and direct the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs to coordinate its efforts with those of national and international organizations to execute the humanitarian emergency action plan, in addition to working towards removing any obstacles, and provide facilities to put that plan into action. Four: The Government last month, allocated SD 150 billion for Darfur state governmentsin support of the provision of basic services and achieving development in those states. I hereby direct the Ministry of Finance and the state governments to begin the execution of the emergency relief plan to restore basic services to rehabilitate the areas of the displaced and the refugees, in preparation for their return home. Five: The Government acknowledges that the above-mentioned achievements are tightly linked to the security situation on the ground, and I would hence like to reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to uphold the ceasefire, and proceed effortlessly to undertake all necessary measures to achieve that end. Finally, I call upon our brothers Abdul Wahid Mohamed Nour and Dr. Khalil Ibrahim to take the courageous decision to join the peace march, since war can never be endless.

475710

United Nations S/PV.4620 Security Council Distr.: General 10 October 2002 Original: English 02-62997 (E) 101002 *0262997* Official communiqué of the 4620th (closed) meeting of the Security Council Held in private at Headquarters, New York, on Thursday, 10 October 2002, at 3.30 p.m. In accordance with rule 55 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, the following communiqué was issued through the Secretary-General in place of a verbatim record: “On 10 October 2002, the Security Council, pursuant to resolution 1353 (2001) annex II, sections A and B, held its 4620th meeting in private with the troop-contributing countries to the United Nations Mission of Observers in Prevlaka (UNMOP). “The Security Council and the troop-contributing countries heard a briefing under rule 39 of its provisional rules to procedure by Mr. Hédi Annabi, Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations.”

549220

UNITED NATIONS E Economic and Social Council Distr. LIMITED E/CN.4/2005/L.10/Add.3 26 April 2005 Original: ENGLISH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Sixty-first session Agenda item 21 (b) REPORT TO THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ON THE SIXTY-FIRST SESSION OF THE COMMISSION Draft report of the Commission Rapporteur: Ms. Deirdre KENT (Canada) CONTENTS* Chapter Page III. Organization of the work of the session ................................................. * Documents E/CN.4/2005/L.10 and addenda will contain the chapters of the report relating to the organization of the session and the various items on the agenda. Resolutions and decisions adopted by the Commission, as well as draft resolutions and decisions for action by, and other matters of concern to, the Economic and Social Council, will be contained in documents E/CN.4/2005/L.11 and addenda. GE.05-13751 (E) 170505 III. Organization of the work of the session A. Opening and duration of the session 1. The Commission on Human Rights held its sixty-first session at the United Nations Office at Geneva on 17 January and from 14 March to 22 April 2005. It held 63 meetings (see E/CN.4/2005/SR.1-63)1 during the session. 2. The session was opened by Mr. Mike Smith, Chairperson of the Commission at its sixtieth session. 3. At the 1st meeting, on 17 January 2005, and at the 2nd meeting, on 14 March, Ms. Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, made statements. B. Attendance 4. The session was attended by representatives of States members of the Commission, by observers for other States Members of the United Nations, by observers for non-member States and Palestine and by representatives of the specialized agencies, regional intergovernmental organizations, other entities, national human rights organizations and non-governmental organizations. An attendance list is given in annex II to the present report. C. Election of officers 5. At its 1st meeting, the Commission elected the following officers by acclamation: Chairperson: Mr. Makarim Wibisono (Indonesia) Vice-Chairpersons: Mr. Hernán Escudero Martínez (Ecuador) Mr. Mohamed Saleck Ould Mohamed Lemine (Mauritania) Mr. Anatoliy Zlenko (Ukraine) Rapporteur: Ms. Deirdre Kent (Canada) 1 Summary records of each of the meetings are subject to correction. They are considered final with the issuance of a consolidated corrigendum (E/CN.4/2005/SR.1-63). 6. Statements in connection with the election of officers were made by the representatives of the Republic of Korea (on behalf of the Group of Asian States) as well as Ethiopia (on behalf of the Group of African States). 7. At the 19th meeting, on 23 March 2005, the Commission elected by acclamation Mr. Volodymyr Vassylenko (Ukraine) as new Vice-Chairperson. 8. A statement in connection with the election of the new Vice-Chairperson was made by the representative of Armenia (on behalf of the Group of Eastern European States). 9. At the 2nd meeting, the Chairperson of the sixty-first session made his opening statement. D. Agenda 10. Also at its 2nd meeting, the Commission had before it the provisional agenda for the sixty-first session (E/CN.4/2005/1 and Add.1-2) drawn up, in accordance with rule 5 of the rules of procedure of the functional commissions of the Economic and Social Council, on the basis of the provisional agenda considered by the Commission at its fifty-ninth session in accordance with paragraph 3 of Council resolution 1894 (LVII) of 1 August 1974. 11. The agenda was adopted without a vote. For the text as adopted, see annex I to the present report. E. Organization of work 12. The Commission considered the organization of its work at its 1st meeting on 17 January 2005, at its 2nd meeting on 14 March, at its 16th meeting on 22 March, at its 41st meeting on 8 April, at its 48th meeting on 13 April, at its 60th and 61st meetings on 21 April and at its 62nd and 63rd meetings on 22 April 2005. 13. For the documents of the sixty-first session issued under agenda item 3, see annex VI to the present report. For a list of all resolutions and decisions adopted by the Commission and Chairperson’s statements, by agenda item, see annex V to the present report. 14. At its 2nd meeting, on 14 March 2005, the Commission approved the timetable for the consideration of agenda items as proposed by its officers, with the understanding that it could be modified in accordance with decisions the Commission might adopt regarding the organization of its work. 15. At the same meeting, on the recommendation of its officers, the Commission decided to invite a number of experts, special rapporteurs, special representatives, chairpersons-rapporteurs of working groups, chairpersons of treaty bodies, if they so wished and were available, and other persons, to participate in the meetings at which their reports were to be considered. 16. The decision was adopted without a vote. For the text as adopted, see chapter II, section B, decision 2005/101. 17. At the same meeting, the Chairperson of the sixtieth session, Mr. Mike Smith, made a statement. 18. At the same meeting, the Commission accepted the recommendations of its officers that: (a) The speaking-time limits for the sixty-first session of the Commission would be 6 minutes per statement per agenda item for member States and 3 minutes for all observers; (b) The speaking time for joint statements by member or observer States should not exceed 15 minutes and if they did so, the individual States that participated in the joint statement could speak for only half the time allotted under the agenda item; (c) The speaking-time limits for joint statements by non-governmental organizations would be as follows: 1 to 2 non-governmental organizations: 3 minutes; 3 to 5 non-governmental organizations: 4 minutes; 6 to 10 non-governmental organizations: 5 minutes; more than 10 non-governmental organizations: 6 minutes; concerned countries would have an additional 5 minutes added to their normal speaking time; (d) Special procedures would have 7 minutes to introduce their reports, with 2 additional minutes for each mission report or complementary document; the interactive dialogue with special procedures should not exceed 40 minutes in total for each mandate; (e) The Chairperson of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights would be allocated 15 minutes; (f) The national institutions would speak for 7 minutes under agenda item 18 (b); (g) Chairpersons of treaty bodies, if they so wished and were available, would be invited to address the Commission and speak for 7 minutes. 19. At the 24th meeting, on 29 March 2005, on the recommendation of its officers, the Commission decided exceptionally to enable a number of non-governmental organizations who could not speak under item 9 due to its opening earlier than scheduled, to speak for 5 minutes instead of 3 minutes under either agenda item 10 or 11. 20. The 5th meeting on 15 March, the 10th meeting on 17 March, the 19th meeting on 23 March, the 40th meeting on 8 April, the 44th meeting on 12 April, the 47th meeting on 13 April, the 56th meeting on 19 April and the 61st meeting on 21 April 2005 were additional meetings, without additional financial implications. 21. At its 2nd meeting, on 19 March 2005, on the recommendation of its officers, the Commission endorsed the recommendation that document E/CN.4/2003/118 and Corr.1 and the agreed provisions of E/CN.4/2002/16 would continue to govern the organization of work and conduct of business of the sixty-first session. 22. At the 16th meeting, Mr. Soren Jessen-Petersen, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Kosovo addressed the Commission on Human Rights. Statements were made by the observers of Albania and Serbia and Montenegro, as concerned countries. 23. At the 41st meeting, on 8 April 2005, Mr. Emmanuel Akwei Addo, the independent expert on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, introduced his report (E/CN.4/2005/11). During the ensuing interactive dialogue, the representative of the Sudan made a statement, as a concerned country, on the report. The representatives of Cuba, Luxembourg (on behalf of the European Union), Sudan, Switzerland and the United States of America also addressed questions to the independent expert, to which he responded. 24. At the 31st meeting, on 4 April 2005, the Commission observed one minute of silence in connection with the death of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Louise Arbour, as well as the observers for the Holy See and Poland made statements. Situation of human rights in Colombia 25. At the 48th meeting on 13 April 2005, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Louise Arbour, introduced the report on the situation of human rights in Colombia (E/CN.4/2005/10). The observer for Colombia made a statement, as a concerned country, on the report. 26. At the same meeting, statements were made by members of the Commission, observers and representatives of non-governmental organizations. The list of speakers appears in annex III to the present report. 27. At the 62nd meeting, on 22 April 2005, the Chairperson made a statement on the situation of human rights in Colombia. For the text, see below. “Situation of human rights in Colombia “1. The Commission on Human Rights strongly supports the activities of the office in Colombia of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, whose mandate was extended in September 2002 at the initiative of the President of the Republic of Colombia for a four-year period until October 2006. This office plays an important role in the work against ongoing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Colombia, through monitoring, advice, technical cooperation, and informational and promotional activities. The Commission welcomes the proposed visit to Colombia in May 2005 of the High Commissioner, at the invitation of the Government of Colombia. “2. The Commission trusts that the Government of Colombia, throughclose cooperation, will continue to actively support and promote the office in Colombia of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in carrying out its full mandate, and calls upon the Government of Colombia to make full use of the advisory services and technical cooperation of the office. The Commission encourages continued financial support for the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia. “3. The Commission on Human Rights welcomes the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Colombia (E/CN.4/2005/10 and Corr.1) and takes note of the document containing the observations of the Government of Colombia on that report. The Commission welcomes the ongoing dialogue between the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia and the Government of Colombia, especially the Office of the Vice-President, and the national and regional authorities. The Commission highlights the efforts of the Government and State institutions to work towards the implementation of the recommendations of the High Commissioner and recognizes the progress made so far. The Commission calls on the Government of Colombia to continue its efforts to obtain further results promptly and to ensure that the recommendations are integrated fully and in a coherent manner in all areas of public policy. It calls on the international community to continue to support the prompt implementation by all relevant parties of the recommendations of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “4. The Commission welcomes the cooperation of the Government of Colombia with United Nations bodies and mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights. The Commission welcomes the ratification of ILO Convention No. 182 concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour. The Commission also welcomes the ongoing debate with regard to the ratification by Colombia of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. It calls upon the Government of Colombia to consider ratifying pending international treaties and to proceed with the formal ratification of those that have been approved. The Commission urges the Government and Congress to comply fully with the obligations assumed by Colombia as a State party to international human rights and international humanitarian law instruments. The Commission calls upon the Government of Colombia to make use of the advice and technical services of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in the implementation of the recommendations of the special procedures and mechanisms. “5. The Commission expresses grave concern at the situation of human rights and international humanitarian law, in particular with regard to vulnerable groups. The Commission is particularly alarmed at reported violations of the rights to life, personal integrity, freedom and security, due process, privacy and intimacy, and is concerned at reported breaches of the fundamental freedoms of movement, residence, opinion and expression. The Commission recognizes the efforts of the Government of Colombia to strengthen respect for civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and takes note of the efforts of State institutions to investigate violations of human rights. The Commission also notes that, in 2004, illegal armed groups were responsible for a vast majority of the breaches of international humanitarian law and criminal acts. “6. The Commission urges that dialogue and negotiations be pursued between the Government of Colombia and all illegal armed groups, aimed at overcoming the situation of violence stemming from the conflict with illegal armed groups and at reaching a lasting peace. The Commission emphasizes the importance of truth, justice and reparation in a comprehensive peace strategy that should lead to reconciliation and lasting peace. “7. The Commission reiterates its support to the Government of Colombia in its search for a negotiated solution to the internal armed conflict, including through direct engagement with those illegal armed groups that may be prepared to cease all hostilities and undertake a constructive and significant peace process, and welcomes the efforts and achievements to date of the Government in this regard. The Commission also underlines the role played by the Secretary-General, and welcomes the engagement of the Organization of American States, the Government of Mexico, the group of friendly countries and other countries, as well as the efforts of the Catholic Church in the processes towards peace in Colombia. The Commission also calls for greater involvement of civil society as an important contribution to the establishment of a dialogue towards peace. “8. The Commission reaffirms its support for the London Declaration of 10 July 2003 and its recommendations, as well as the Cartagena Declaration adopted on 3 February 2005. The Commission recognizes the efforts and achievements of the Government of Colombia in carrying forward the spirit of the London Declaration, and encourages it to continue the process. The Commission welcomes the efforts of the Government of Colombia to engage in a constructive dialogue with civil society, and the recognition of the important role of civil society. “9. The Commission stresses its full support to the Government of Colombia in its efforts to establish the rule of law throughout the country, to fight against impunity, and to fight against terrorism and illicit drug production and trafficking in the framework of the rule of law and respect for human rights. The Commission welcomes the fact that relevant authorities are now able to exercise their powers in nearly all municipalities; it also welcomes the fact that an increased presence of the State has enabled the latter to adopt measures for the prevention and protection of the civilian population in the municipal centres. “10. The Commission notes the ongoing process of disarmament and demobilization. The Commission urges the Government and Congress of Colombia to establish, as soon as possible a comprehensive legal framework for the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration process of the illegal armed groups that fully recognize and guarantee the rights to truth, justice and reparations. Such a comprehensive legal framework would bring about a lasting peace in the framework of good governance, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, and lead towards national reconciliation. It should also recognize the principle that persons charged with human rights violations and abuses cannot be granted impunity from prosecution. “11. The Commission is concerned about continuing cases of problems relating to access to justice, judicial independence and impartiality, judicial guarantees and presumption of innocence. The Commission appeals to the Government of Colombia increasingly to address the issue of impunity and to take action to improve the capacity and effectiveness of the judicial system. In this context the Commission acknowledges the adoption of a new oral procedure that expedites criminal processes. The Commission underlines the important role of the Constitutional Court in the defence of human rights - civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural rights - democracy and rule of law. The Commission also notes the work of the Office of the Ombudsman and other State institutions in the defence of human rights. “12. The Commission urges the Government and Congress of Colombia to take into account international human rights law and international humanitarian law in the process of reform of the justice system, so as to guarantee judicial control over actions by the State, ensure judicial guarantees for its citizens and ensure that the military is not granted judicial powers in a manner inconsistent with international obligations. The Commission acknowledges the reforms introduced in the Prosecutor-General’s Office using the advisory services of the office of the High Commissioner in Colombia and financial support of the international community. The Commission also calls upon the Office of the Vice-President to continue its activities within its Programme to Combat Impunity. The Commission suggests that the Government of Colombia continue using the advisory services and technical cooperation of the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia regarding an appropriate framework for judicial reform that could contribute to strengthening the rule of law. “13. The Commission encourages the Government of Colombia to pursue its commendable intention to adopt the National Action Plan on Human Rights and International Humanitarian law, encourages it also to adopt this action plan by December 2005 and notes with appreciation its ongoing efforts to prepare it following full and transparent consultations with representatives of civil society. In this regard, Commission welcomes the Agreement for Technical Cooperation signed by the Office of the Vice-President and the office in Colombia of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. “14. The Commission encourages the Government of Colombia to further develop, according to international parameters, its statistical system in order to cover adequately violations of human rights and breaches of international humanitarian law, by making use of the advice of the Office of the High Commissioner. “15. The Commission also welcomes the decrease for indicators of violence such as homicides, massacres and kidnappings as compared to those of 2003. It shares the Government concern that the level and frequency of such crimes remain extremely high. “16. The Commission reiterates the need for all security measures taken under the Democratic Security Policy to comply with the obligations of Colombia under international law and international humanitarian law. The Commission takes into account that controls for detention procedures and the right of habeas corpus exist in Colombia. However, it also expresses its gravest concern at reports of extrajudicial executions attributed to members of the security forces or other public servants and at reports of arrests and mass searches carried out without appropriate legal foundations and the practice of individual or massive arrests as well as individual or mass detentions. It also expresses grave concern at reports of widespread use of torture and continuing enforced disappearances. The Commission acknowledges that the Government submits such reports to competent authorities for investigation. “17. The Commission expresses concern at the role of unverified information from informants. The Commission appeals to the Government of Colombia not to use information that has not been adequately verified. The Commission takes note that the Government of Colombia has set up a system that submits information provided by informants to procedures for further verification. “18. The Commission expresses grave concern at reports that members of the security forces were responsible for breaches of international humanitarian law. The Commission expresses serious concern at reports of cases of support, collusion or complicity on the part of State agents with paramilitary groups, and encourages the Government of Colombia to strengthen its policy to sever all links between paramilitary groups and civil servants at regional and national levels in administrations and institutions and takes note of the increasing number of investigations carried out by the State. It calls upon the Government of Colombia to increase its efforts to investigate such reports and to prosecute the personnel concerned under civil law and calls on the Government to make full use of the legal powers at its disposal to ensure that measures of suspension are taken when the investigation reveals significant evidence of collusion with the paramilitary forces. “19. The Commission requests that the Government of Colombia implement firmly its commitment to foster investigations of complaints in relation to forced disappearances, mainly perpetrated by paramilitary groups but also sometimes attributed to the security forces. The Commission expresses its concern at reports about the growing number of arbitrary detentions that can lead to stigmatization of and threats towards the members of civil society that have been detained. “20. The Commission welcomes the invitation by the Government of Colombia extended to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to visit Colombia next June. The Commission also notes the work undertaken by the Office of the Ombudsman, together with other institutions, to set up a mechanism to investigate cases of disappearance. “21. The Commission condemns all breaches of international humanitarian law in Colombia and calls on all parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law, including the humanitarian principles of distinction, limitation, proportionality and immunity of the civilian population. “22. The Commission condemns the massacres and cruel violence, in particular the murder of eight members of the Community of Peace of San José de Apartadó, including four children, on 21 February 2005, and calls on the Government of Colombia to ensure that a full investigation is carried out into this massacre, and that its perpetrators are brought to justice. “23. The Commission strongly condemns continuous breaches by the paramilitary groups of the cessation of hostilities, and the fact that all illegal armed groups continue to use violent means and to commit serious and numerous breaches such as attacks on the civilian population, indiscriminate attacks, homicides, massacres, hostage-taking, or forced displacements, recruitment of minors and violence against women and girls. “24. The Commission strongly condemns all acts of terrorism and other criminal attacks, such as attacks against life, physical integrity and personal liberty and safety, committed by the illegal armed groups. It strongly urges all illegal armed groups to comply with international humanitarian law and to respect the legitimate exercise by the population of their human rights. “25. The Commission welcomes the very positive actions taken by the Government to comply with the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (the Ottawa Convention), especially the recent destruction of the stocked mines by the Army. It encourages the Government to continue the process of de-mining, as well as to continue its efforts to prevent and limit risks to the population - especially to displaced and returned persons - and to strengthen mechanisms for assisting victims of anti-personnel landmines. The Commission calls on the international community to continue supporting the programmes set up by the Government of Colombia to comply with the Ottawa Convention. The Commission condemns frequent indiscriminate attacks committed by the illegal armed groups with anti-personnel landmines, which have maimed or killed hundreds of Colombians, including women and children. The Commission strongly urges all illegal armed groups to comply with the Convention and immediately stop using anti-personnel landmines and destroy all stockpiles. “26. The Commission also condemns the recruitment of a large number of children by illegal armed groups and urges those groups to stop such recruitment and to demobilize immediately those children currently in their ranks, in accordance with Security Council resolution 1539 (2004) of 22 April 2004. The Commission encourages the Government of Colombia to intensify its efforts to ensure the reintegration of all child soldiers into society. “27. In this regard, the Commission notes that some progress has been made in ending the recruitment and use of children by illegal armed groups. It acknowledges that the National Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Programme of the Colombian Institute for Family Welfare has assisted over 800 children from November 2003 to December 2004, and that another 550 children were assisted by the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programme for indigenous and Afro-Colombian children by the International Organization for Migration during the last two years, as documented in the report of the Secretary-General on children and armed conflict (A/59/695-S/2005/72). “28. The Commission firmly condemns the practice of kidnapping, whether for political or economic reasons. The Commission expresses deep concern at the still high number of kidnapped persons, and deplores the consequences that kidnappings have on victims, their families and society as a whole. The Commission urges the immediate and unconditional release of all the kidnapped persons. In this context, the Commission emphasizes the importance of reaching a humanitarian agreement that can lead to the rapid release of those kidnapped and to ending the practice of kidnapping. The Commission also condemns the fact that illegal armed groups continue to fund their activities through kidnapping, and through involvement in the production and trafficking of illegal drugs. “29. The Commission welcomes the efforts of the Government to ensure a presence of security forces over the territory and to develop preventive responses to the risks faced by vulnerable groups through the Inter-Institutional Early Warning Committee (CIAT), and acknowledges the progress made so far in this regard. The Commission encourages the Government to further strengthen and improve CIAT, especially by reviewing the risk-evaluation mechanisms it has adopted. It further encourages CIAT to analyse carefully the risk reports involving the paramilitaries as well as guerrilla groups. “30. The Commission deplores the fact that human rights defenders, including trade unionists, women’s organizations, social leaders, as well as journalists, opinion makers and local officials including members of political parties, community leaders, judicial officers and business people continue to be particularly affected by the armed conflict and to be the victims of homicides and threats by the illegal armed groups. The Commission encourages the Government to ensure that the programmes for the protection of human rights defenders and other vulnerable groups are comprehensive and effective. Reaffirming its particular concerns regarding the climate of hostility existing around the work of human rights defenders, the Commission also encourages the Government to ensure that all public servants at all levels show due respect to the individual and collective work carried out by human rights defenders. The Commission calls upon the Government to ensure that no public statements are made that may endanger their lives, integrity and security. “31. The Commission welcomes the increase in resources allocated to the Programme of Protection of Vulnerable Populations within the Department of the Interior and Justice, and the permanent integration of protection programmes into the National Development Plan. The Commission notes the constructive dialogue with civil society undertaken by the Vice-President at Cartagena in February 2005 and expresses the hope that such an approach will continue to strengthen. “32. The Commission remains deeply concerned by the still extremely high numbers of internally displaced persons, and urges the illegal armed groups to refrain from actions that give rise to displacements. It recognizes the downward trend in the number of newly displaced persons, noting however that the total number of newly displaced has increased. The Commission calls on the Government of Colombia to continue to implement the recommendations of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons and encourages the Government to continue to cooperate with international bodies, especially the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Commission supports the efforts towards durable solutions to the still grave humanitarian situation, such as the “Plan Nacional de atención integral a la población desplazada”, for which financial resources have increased. It also encourages the Government of Colombia to conclude the “Plan de Acción Humanitaria”, and to implement both plans urgently. The Commission urges all illegal armed groups to allow humanitarian access to all areas throughout the country. “33. The Commission deplores the continued violence against indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities. The Commission also expresses grave concern at the situation of the indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities that are being subjected to confinement. “34. The Commission further condemns ongoing violations of the economic, social and cultural rights of persons belonging to minorities and indigenous communities, and urges all actors to respect their special cultural status. It appeals to all illegal armed groups to respect the identity and integrity of these minorities and indigenous communities. Supporting the efforts of the Government of Colombia to promote and protect the rights of persons belonging to minorities and indigenous communities, the Commission calls upon the Government of Colombia to increase its efforts to alleviate extreme poverty in regions with great concentrations of minorities and indigenous communities. The Commission encourages the Government to take special and urgent measures to defend indigenous communities at risk of extinction and to prevent their forced displacement. “35. The Commission condemns the continuing violations of the rights of women and girls and the climate of impunity in which such violations occur, and stresses the need to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for such violations. The Commission condemns particularly the reports of attacks against the personal integrity and dignity of women and girls, sexual and gender-based violence and slavery-like practices, which have been attributed mainly to illegal armed groups, but also to members of the Security Forces. The Commission encourages the Government to adopt a gender perspective while addressing the problem of impunity, and the guarantees of the rights to truth, justice and reparations of victims of the armed conflict, as well as in the development and implementation of public policies to address poverty and social and economic inequalities. The Commission supports the efforts of the Government in setting up programmes of the Presidential Advisory Office on Women’s Equality in the areas of peace-building, security, development and rural women, as well as in developing a specific statistical system to monitor the situation of women in the framework of the fulfilment of the Beijing commitments, and calls upon the Government to implement these programmes. It also underlines the importance of the National Agreement on Gender Equality and of the National Policy on Sexual and Reproductive Health and urges further advances in these areas. “36. The Commission also deplores violations of the right to life of children. It is concerned that abandonment, child labour, sexual exploitation and abuse, physical ill-treatment and familial violence continue to occur, and calls for a specific policy for children to be developed to address these issues. “37. The Commission stresses the need to further address poverty, exclusion, social injustice and the gap in wealth distribution. The Commission supports the efforts of the Government of Colombia to address extreme poverty, illiteracy and unemployment and to guarantee access to health, education and housing and encourages the Government to adopt a gender perspective in the formation of policies in these areas. The Commission is encouraged by the reduction of the unemployment rate. “38. The Commission further calls upon the Government of Colombia to make full use of the advisory services and technical expertise of the office in Colombia of the High Commissioner for Human Rights with a view to ensuring that norms and measures adopted by Colombian institutions are consistent with international human rights law. The Commission also calls upon the Government of Colombia to ensure that the recommendations of the High Commissioner for Human Rights are implemented swiftly, and reiterates the need for the adoption in the first half of 2005 of a timetable for implementation of the recommendations. The Commission welcomes the commitment of Government of Colombia to work in a constructive spirit with the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia to examine the implementation and evaluation of the recommendations. “39. The Commission calls upon the international community to continue to support the prompt implementation by all relevant parties of the recommendations of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “40. The Commission requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to submit to it at its sixty-second session a detailed report containing an analysis by her Office of the human rights situation in Colombia, in accordance with the agreement between the Government of Colombia and her Office on the operation of the permanent office in Bogotá.” Question of detainees in the area of the United States naval base in Guantánamo 28. At the 60th meeting, on 21 April 2005, the representative of Cuba introduced draft resolution E/CN.4/2005/L.94/Rev.1, sponsored by Belarus, Cuba and the Syrian Arab Republic. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Venezuela subsequently joined the sponsors. The draft resolution read as follows: “The Commission on Human Rights, “Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms through international cooperation, “Aware that all persons are entitled to respect for their human rights as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and bearing in mind that several of these rights are non-derogable, and that their enjoyment cannot be restricted under any circumstances, “Recalling the duty of all States to respect and comply with their obligations under international instruments, including those relating to human rights, to which they are party, “Recalling also general comment No. 31 (2004) of the Human RightsCommittee, adopted at its 2187th meeting on 29 March 2004, “Recalling further the request made to the Government of the United States on 25 June 2004 by four thematic procedures mandate holders of the Commission, with the objective of visiting the persons detained on grounds of terrorism, including in Guantánamo Bay, “Taking into account the statement made on 4 February 2005 by six special procedures mandate holders of the Commission, reaffirming their serious concern over the situation of detainees at the naval base in Guantánamo, despite some positive developments that had occurred in recent months, “Taking into account also that a significant number of Governments and parliaments from all over the world have expressed their concern in this regard, among them the European Parliament which, in its resolution on Guantánamo adopted on 28 October 2004, called on the United States administration to allow an impartial and independent investigation into allegations of torture and mistreatment for all persons deprived of their liberty in United States custody, “Taking note of the information provided by representatives of the United States of America to Member States during the sixty-firstsession of the Commission on some aspects of the question of the detainees in the area of United States naval base in Guantánamo, and that the United States stated its willingness to consider the requests made by some special procedures mandate holders to visit the Guantánamo naval base detention centres, “1. Requests the Government of the United States of America to authorize an impartial and independent fact-finding mission by the relevant special procedures of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of detainees at its naval base in Guantánamo; “2. Also requests the Government of the United States of America,with that end in view, to authorize the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers to visit the detention centres that have been established on that base; “3. Requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare and submit to the Commission at its sixty-second session, a report on the situation of the detainees at the United States naval base in Guantánamo, based on the findings of the visits to be conducted thereto by the mandate holders of the above-mentioned special procedures; “4. Decides to continue the consideration of this issue at its next session.” 29. The representative of Cuba orally revised the second preambular paragraph by replacing “restricted” by “derogated from”, the fourth preambular paragraph by inserting at the end of the sentence “in particular its paragraphs 3, 10 and 11,” and operative paragraph 3 by replacing “based on” by “bearing in mind”. 30. Statements in explanation of vote before the vote were made by the representatives of Canada, Costa Rica, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mauritania, the Netherlands (on behalf of the States members of the European Union that are members of the Commission - Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as Romania, which aligned itself with the statement), Peru, Sudan and the United States of America. 31. At the request of the representative of the United States of America, a recorded vote was taken on the draft resolution, as orally revised, which was rejected by 22 votes to 8, with 23 abstentions. The voting was as follows: In favour: China, Cuba, Guatemala, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa, Sudan, Zimbabwe. Against: Armenia, Australia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Finland, France, Germany, Honduras, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mauritania, Netherlands, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstaining: Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Indonesia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine. Proposed reform of the Secretary-General in the area of human rights 32. At the 62nd meeting, on 22 April 2005, the representative of Ethiopia (on behalf of the States members of the African Group) introduced draft decision E/CN.4/2005/L.101, sponsored by Ethiopia (on behalf of the States members of the African Group). Cuba subsequently joined the sponsors. 33. Statements in connection with the draft decision were made by Canada, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands (on behalf of the States members of the European Union that are members of the Commission - Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Nigeria, South Africa, the United States of America and Zimbabwe. 34. The representative of the Netherlands (on behalf of the States members of the European Union that are members of the Commission - Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) proposed to amend the draft decision to read as follows: “The Commission on Human Rights, taking into account the report of the Secretary-General entitled ‘In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all’ (A/59/2005) on, inter alia, the reform of the Commission, and bearing in mind the recommendations contained in the reports of the panels commissioned by the Secretary-General, that is, the report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change entitled ‘A more secure world: Our shared responsibility’ (A/59/565 and Corr.1) and the Millennium Project report entitled Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals, decides to hold informal consultations for two days in June 2005 under its current Chairperson to reflect on the recommendations on human rights contained in the report of the Secretary-General and to invite the relevant facilitator of the President of the General Assembly and invite the Secretariat to produce a summary report of the consultation. ” 35. At the same meeting, the Chairperson moved, under rule 48 of the rules of procedure of the functional commissions of the Economic and Social Council, that the meeting be adjourned for 30 minutes. 36. At the same meeting, the Chairperson moved, under rule 63 of the rules of procedure of the functional commissions of the Economic and Social Council, to determine whether the text proposed by the representative of the Netherlands (on behalf of the States members of the European Union that are members of the Commission - Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) constituted an amendment in the sense of rule 63 of the rules of procedure. 37. By a recorded vote, the Commission decided by 28 votes to 19, with 6 abstentions, that the text as proposed by the representative of the Netherlands (on behalf of the States members of the European Union that are members of the Commission - Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) was not an amendment. The voting was as follows: In favour: Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Against: Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt,Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Zimbabwe. Abstaining: Argentina, Armenia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Paraguay. 38. Statements in explanation of vote before the vote were made by Argentina, Armenia, Costa Rica, the Netherlands (on behalf of the States members of the European Union that are members of the Commission - Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as Romania, which aligned itself with the statement), Peru and the United States of America. 39. At the request of the representative of the United States of America, a recorded vote was taken on the draft decision, which was adopted by 34 votes to 15, with 4 abstentions. The vote was as follows: In favour: Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Zimbabwe. Against: Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstaining: Armenia, Gabon, Guatemala, Mexico. 40. For the text, see chapter II, section B, decision 2005/116. Situation of human rights in Liberia 41. At the 62nd meeting, on 22 April 2005, the observer for Luxembourg (on behalf of the European Union) introduced draft decision E/CN.4/2005/L.102, sponsored by Congo and Luxembourg (on behalf of the European Union). Switzerland subsequently joined the sponsors. 42. The draft decision was adopted without a vote. For the text, see chapter II, section B, decision 2005/117. Technical cooperation and advisory services in the field of human rights in Chad 43. At the 62nd meeting, on 22 April 2005, the observer for Luxembourg (on behalf of the European Union) introduced draft decision E/CN.4/2005/L.103, sponsored by Luxembourg (on behalf of the European Union). Switzerland subsequently joined the sponsors. 44. The draft decision was adopted without a vote. For the text, see chapter II, section B, decision 2005/118. F. Meetings, resolutions and documentation 45. As indicated in paragraph 1 above, the Commission held 63 fully serviced meetings. 46. The resolutions and decisions adopted by the Commission at its sixty-first session are contained in chapter II of the present report. Draft decisions for action by the Economic and Social Council are set out in chapter I. For a list of resolutions and decisions adopted by the Commission and Chairperson’s statements, by agenda item, see annex V to the present report. 47. Annex III contains a list of speakers in the general debate on agenda items 3 to 20. 48. Annex IV contains a statement regarding the administrative and programme budget implications of resolutions and decisions adopted by the Commission at its sixty-first session. 49. Annex VI contains a list of documents issued for the sixty-first session of the Commission. G. Visits 50. During its sixty-first session, the Commission heard statements by the following guest speakers, addressing the Commission during the high-level segment: (a) At the 3rd meeting, on 14 March 2005: Mr. Jean Asselborn, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg (also on behalf of the European Union); Mr. Ali Mohamed Osman Yassin, Minister of Justice and chairman of the Advisory Council for Human Rights of Sudan; Ms. Micheline Calmy-Rey, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Switzerland; Mr. Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid Albar, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Malaysia; Mr. Karel de Gucht, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belgium; Mr. Marco Vinicio Vargas, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica; Mr. Manuel Rodríguez-Cuadros, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Peru followed by a statement in exercise of the right of reply by the representative of Japan; Mr. Askar Aitmatov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Kyrgyz Republic; The Honourable Pierre Pettigrew, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Canada; Dr. María Teresa Fernández de la Vega, Deputy Prime Minister of Spain; Mr. Renaud Muselier, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of France. (b) At the 4th meeting, on 15 March 2005: Mr. Erkki Tuomioja, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland; Mr. Vartan Oskanian, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Armenia, followed by a statement in exercise of the right of reply by the observer for Azerbaijan in connection with which, at the 6th meeting, a statement in exercise of the right of reply was made by the observer for Turkey; Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, at the 6th meeting, on the same day, a statement in exercise of the right of reply was made by the representative of the United Kingdom as well as at the 7th meeting, on 16 March 2005, by the representative of India and by the observer for Thailand as well as at the 11th on 17 March 2005, by the observers for Greece and Philippines; Mr. Hamadi Ould Meimou, Human Rights Commissioner of Mauritania; Ms. Amat Al-Alim Al-Soswa, Minister of Human Rights of Yemen; Mr. Kastriot Islami, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania; Dr. Dimitrij Rupel, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Slovenia, Chairman in the Office of the OSCE; Ms. Patricia Olamendi, Deputy Foreign Minister for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of Mexico; Dr. N. Hassan Wirajuda, Minister for Foreign Affairs Republic of Indonesia; Dr. Bernard Bot, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands; Mr. George Iacovou, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cyprus, at the 11th meeting, a statement in exercise of the right of reply was made by the observer for Turkey in connection with which a statement in exercise of the right of reply was made by the observer for Cyprus, followed by a second statement in exercise of the right of reply by the observer for Turkey, followed by a second statement in exercise of the right of reply by the observer for Cyprus. (c) The 5th meeting, on 15 March 2005: Dr. Alcinda António de Abreu, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Mozambique; Prof. Belela Herrera, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Uruguay; Mr. Borys Tarasyuk, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine; Mr. Lakshman Kadirgamar, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka; Mr. Kassymzhomart Tokayev, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan; Mr. Mohamed Bouzoubaa, Minister of Justice of Morocco; at the 6th meeting, on the same day, a statement in exercise of the right of reply was made by the observer for Algeria, in connection with which a statement in exercise of the right of reply was made by the observer for Morocco, followed by a second statement in exercise of the right of reply by the observer for Algeria, followed by a second statement in exercise of the right of reply by the observer for Morocco; Dr. D. Horacio Daniel Rosatti, Minister of Justice and Human Rights of Argentina. (d) At the 6th meeting, on 15 March 2005: Mr. Nilmário Miranda, Cabinet Minister, Special Secretary for Human Rights of Brazil; Hon. Mr. Ramesh Nath Pandey, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nepal; Dr. Nizar Obaid Madani, Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia; Ms. Laila Freivalds, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden; Mr. Artis Pabriks, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia; Ms. Bridgitte Mabandla, Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development of South Africa; Ms. Jadranka Kosor, Deputy Prime Minister of Croatia; Ms. Margherita Boniver, State Minister for Foreign Affairs of Italy; Ms. Monique Ilboudo, Minister for Promotion of Human Rights of Burkina Faso. (e) At the 7th meeting, on 16 March 2005: Ms. Mary Pili Hernandez, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Venezuela; Mr. Phandu T.C. Skelemani, Minister for Presidential Affairs and Public Administration of Botswana; Ms. Marta Altolaguirre, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Guatemala; Dr. Jorge Hernandez Alcerro, Minister of Governance and Justice of Honduras; Mr. Jacob Kellenberger, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross; Mr. Dao Viet Trung, Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam; Mr. Felipe Pérez Roque, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cuba; Mr. Itsunori Onodera, Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Japan, followed by a statement in exercise of the right of reply by the representative of China as well as the observer for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in connection with which a statement in exercise of the right of reply was made by the representative of Japan, followed by a second statement in exercise of the right of reply by the observer for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, followed by a second statement in exercise of the right of reply of the representative of Japan; Mr. Hans Winkler, Deputy Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Austria; Mr. Alhaji Abubakar Tanko, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Nigeria; Mr. Bill Rammell MP, Minister for International Human Rights Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, followed by a statement in exercise of the right of reply by the representative of Zimbabwe as well as the observer for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; Dr. Francisco Santos Calderón, Vice-President of the Republic of Colombia. (f) At the 8th meeting, on 16 March 2005: Ms. Marie-Madeleine Kalala, Minister for Human Rights of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Mr. Šarūnas Adomavičius, Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania; Mr. Pavel Svoboda, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic; Mr. Kiraitu Murungi, Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs of the Republic of Kenya; Mr. Mahmud Mammad-Quliyev, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, at the 11th meeting, a statement in exercise of the right of reply was made by the representative of Armenia in connection with which a statement in exercise of the right of reply was made by the observer for Azerbaijan; Mrs. Carmen Liliana Burlacu, Director-General for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania; Mr. Reaz Rahman, Advisor (State Minister) for Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh; Mr. Omer Berzinji, Head of the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iraq; Mr. Vuk Draškovic, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Serbia and Montenegro; Mr. Mladen Ivanić, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Mr. Petko Draganov, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Bulgaria; Mr. Muhammad Wasi Zafar, Minister of Law, Justice and Human Rights of Pakistan, at the 9th meeting, a statement in exercise of the right of reply was made by the representative of India in connection with which a statement in exercise of the right of reply was made by the representative of Pakistan, followed at the 11th meeting, by a second statement in exercise of the right of reply by the representative of India, followed by a second statement in exercise of the right of reply by the representative of Pakistan. (g) At the 9th meeting, on 17 March 2005: Ms. Eugenia Kistruga, First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Moldova; Mr. José Martínez Lezcano, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Paraguay; Mr. Aaron Leshno Yaar, Deputy Director-General for United Nations and International Organizations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel; Mr. Paul Mba Abessole, Vice-Prime Minister, Minister of Transport, Aviation, in charge of Human Rights in Gabon; Mr. Markku Niskala, Secretary-General of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; Mr. Yuri V. Fedotov, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, at the 11th meeting, a statement in exercise of the right of reply was made by the observer for Latvia in connection with which a statement in exercise of the equivalent of the right of reply was made by the representative of the Russian Federation; Ms. Victorine Wodie, Minister for Human Rights of Côte d’Ivoire; Mr. Patrick Anthony Chinamasa, Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs of Zimbabwe; Mr. Déogratias Rusengwamihigo, Minister for Constitutional Reform, Human Rights and Relations with the Parliament of Burundi; Dr. Akmal Saidov, Minister, Chairman of the Committee for Human Rights in Uzbekistan; Ms. Paula Dobriansky, Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs of the United States of America. (h) At the 10th meeting, on 17 March 2005: Mr. Carsten Staur, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark; Ms. Maître Mame Bassine Niang, Minister and High Commissioner for Human Rights of Senegal; Hon. Mr. J. Ayikoi Otoo, Attorney-General and Minister of Justice of Ghana; Mr. Mauricio Díaz Dávila, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua; Mr. Laurent Esso, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cameroon; Mr. George Chicoty, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Angola. (i) At the 11th meeting, on 17 March 2005: Ms. Edda Mukabagwiza, Minister of Justice of Rwanda; Dr. José Ramos-Horta, Senior Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Timor-Leste; Prof. Adam Daniel Rotfeld, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland; Mr. Eduard Kukan, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Slovakia; Mr. Vidar Helgesen, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway; Mr. Ricardo Mangue Obama Nfubea, Vice-Prime Minister in charge of Public Administration, Social Affairs and Human Rights of Equatorial Guinea; Mr. Conor Lenihan TD, Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs of Ireland with Special Responsibility for Overseas Development and Human Rights; Dr. G. Ali Khoshroo, Deputy Foreign Minister for International and Legal Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Ms. Wendy Chamberlin, Acting United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 51. The following guest speakers also addressed the Commission during its sixty-first session: (a) At the 16th meeting, on 22 March 2005: Mr. Joschka Fischer, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany, followed by a statement in exercise of the right of reply by the representative of China; (b) At the same meeting, Mr. Gabriel Entcha-Ebia, Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the Republic of Congo; (c) At the 31st meeting, on 4 April 2005, Ms. Matilde Ribeiro, Special Secretary of the Presidency of Brazil on Policies for Racial Equity; (d) At the same meeting, Mr. Rainer Funke, Member of the German Bundestag and Chairperson of the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid of Germany; (e) At the 37th meeting, on 7 April 2005, Mr. Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations; (f) At the 52nd meeting, on 15 April 2005, Mr. Bernard Gousse, Minister of Justice of Haiti. H. Organization of the work of the sixty-second session of the Commission 52. At the 61st meeting, on 21 April 2005, the Chairperson orally introduced a draft decision concerning the dates of the sixty-second session of the Commission. 53. The draft decision was adopted without a vote. For the text, see chapter II, section B, decision 2005/114. 54. At the same meeting, the Chairperson orally introduced a draft decision concerning the organization of work of the sixty-second session of the Commission. 55. The draft decision was adopted without a vote. For the text, see chapter II, section B, decision 2005/115. I. Concluding remarks 56. At the 63rd meeting, on 22 April 2005, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Louise Arbour, made concluding remarks. 57. At the same meeting, concluding remarks were also made by the following speakers: (a) Mr. Makarim Wibisono, Chairperson of the sixty-first session of the Commission; (b) The representative of Ethiopia (on behalf of the Group of African States); (c) The representative of the Republic of Korea (on behalf of the Group of Asian States); (d) The representative of Armenia (on behalf of the Group of Eastern European States); (e) The representative of Mexico (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States); (f) The representative of Ireland (on behalf of the Group of Western European and Other States); (g) The representative of Chile (on behalf of a cross-regional group of countries); (h) The representative of Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference); (i) The representative of China; (j) Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers) (on behalf of CONGO and human rights non-governmental organizations working in Geneva). -----

507922

MEETING OF THE STATES PARTIES TO THE APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.1 CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF 4 September 2003 THE USE, STOCKPILING, PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES AND ON THEIR DESTRUCTION Original: ENGLISH Fifth Meeting Bangkok, 15-19 September 2003 Item 12 of the provisional agenda LIST OF THE REPORTS ON TRANSPARENCY MEASURES CONTENTS Page I. Introduction.....................................................................................................2 II. List of the Reports submitted by States Parties pursuant to their obligations under Article 7 .............................................................................3 III. List of the Reports submitted by States Not-Party on a voluntary basis pursuant to relevant United Nations General Assembly resolutions ……….11 Annex 1: Standard Reporting Formats for Article 7…………………………………..12 Annex 2: Cover Page of the Annual Article 7 Report…………………………………18 GE.03-64327 I. INTRODUCTION 1. Under Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention, each State Party shall report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations as soon as practicable, and in any event not later than 180 days after the entry into force of this Convention for that State Party on items (a) to (i). Further, the States Parties shall update these reports annually, covering the last calendar year, and submit them to the Secretary-General of the United Nations not later than 30 April of each year (Article 7, para.2). To facilitate this undertaking and to promote comparability and evaluation of data, in May 1999 the First Meeting of the States Parties adopted the standard reporting format, developed in consultation with States Parties. In September 2000, at the Second Meeting of the States Parties in Geneva, the Article 7 reporting format was amended to include an additional form “Form J: Other relevant matters”. This form provides States Parties with the opportunityto report voluntarily on matters pertaining to compliance and implementation not covered by the formal reporting requirements contained in Article 7, in particular to report on activities undertaken with respect to Article 6: on assistance provided for the care and rehabilitation, and social and economic reintegration, of mine victims.1 2. To make the reporting procedure more efficient a cover page of the annual Article 7 report has been adopted by the States Parties at the 4th Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention. The idea of the cover page is that the reporting party will indicate if something has changed in relation to the previous report. If nothing has changed, the reporting party will limit itself to filling the cover page.2 3. This report gives an overview of replies transmitted by the States Parties on the standard reporting forms, as of 4 September 2003. The full contents of replies are available on the Internet3 . 1 See Annex 1. 2 See Annex 2. 3 See APLC/MSP.1/1999/1, page 6, paragraphs 23 and 24. The Internet address is: http://disarmament.un.org/MineBan.nsf. II. LIST OF THE REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES PURSUANT TO THEIROBLIGATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 7 As of 4 September 2003 No State Date of submission Reporting period Language 1 Afghanistan 1 Sep 2003 01 Mar 2003 – 01 Sep 2003 English 3 Apr 2002 Year 2001 2 Albania 30 Apr 2003 Year 2002 English 3 Algeria 1 May 2003 Year 2002 French 4 Andorra 12 Jul 2000 1 Jan 1996 - 31 Dec 1999 French 5 Angola 6 Antigua and Barbuda 29 Mar 2000 Nov 1999 - 29 Mar 2000 English 31 Aug 2000 14 Mar 2000 - 21 Aug 2000 28 May 2001 22 Aug 2000 - 11 May 2001 23 Jul 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 7 Argentina 16 May 2003 Spanish 23 Dec 1999 1 Jun 1999 - 27 Dec 1999 18 Apr 2000 Calendar year 1999 21 May 2001 1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2000 30 Apr 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 8 Australia 30 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 29 Jul 1999 1 Mar 1999 - 30 Apr 1999 28 Apr 2000 30 Apr 1999 - 31 Dec 1999 30 Apr 2001 1 Jan 2000 – 31 Dec 2000 3 May 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 9 Austria 29 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 10 Bahamas 12 Mar 2002 1999 - 2001 English 28 Aug 2002 5 Mar 2001 - 10 Mar 2002 11 Bangladesh 29 Apr 2003 10 Mar 2002 - 29 Apr 2003 English 12 Barbados 12 May 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 15 Aug 1999 1 Jan 1999 - 31 Dec 1999 English/ French 27 Apr 2000 Calendar year 1999 English 30 Apr 2001 1 Jan 2000 – 31 Dec 2000 French 30 Apr 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 English 13 Belgium 30 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 14 Belize 4 Nov 1999 Jan 1999 - Dec 1999 English 15 Oct 1999 Aug 1999 - 31 Dec 1999 15 Benin 18 Oct 2000 1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2000 21 Jan 2001 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 French 16 Bolivia 8 Nov 1999 1 Jan 1999 - 8 Nov 1999 Spanish 1 Feb 2000 8 Mar 1999 - 1 Feb 2000 1 Sep 2001 Jan 1996 - 1 Sep 2001 17 Bosnia and Herzegovina 20 May 2002 Jan 1996 - 30 Apr 2002 English No State Date of submission Reporting period Language 1 Apr 2003 Year2002 18 Botswana 28 Sep 2001 English 29 Mar 2000 Oct 1999 - Mar 2000 30 Apr 2001 Mar 2000 - Dec 2000 30 Apr 2002 Jan 2001 - Dec 2001 19 Brazil 17 Mar 2003 Jan 2002 - Dec 2002 English 27 Aug 1999 1 Mar 1999 - 27 Aug 1999 5 Apr 2000 27 Jul 1999 - 5 Apr 2000 1 Mar 2001 5 Apr 2000 - 1 Mar 2001 22 Apr 2002 1 Mar 2001 - 31 Mar 2002 20 Bulgaria 18 Apr 2003 31 Mar 2002 - 31 Mar 2003 English 4 Dec 2000 Year 2000 6 Aug 2001 Calendar year 2000 14 Mar 2002 Calendar year 2001 21 Burkina Faso 21 Apr 2003 Calendar year 2002 English 26 Jun 2000 1993 - 26 Jun 2000 30 Jun 2001 1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2000 19 Apr 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 22 Cambodia 15 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 23 Cameroon4 14 Mar 2001 French 27 Aug 1999 1 Jan 1999 - 31 Jul 1999 27 Apr 2000 1 Aug 1999 - 14 Mar 2000 30 Apr 2001 15 Mar 2000 - 15 Feb 2001 24 Apr 2002 16 Feb 2001 - 1 Mar 2002 24 Canada 22 Apr 2003 2 Mar 2002 – 7 Apr 2003 English/ French 25 Cape Verde 26 Central African Republic5 27 Chad 29 Apr 2002 -- - April 2002 French 4 Sep 2002 9 Mar 2002 – 5 Sep 2002 28 Chile 30 Apr 2003 6 Sep 2002 – 30 Apr 2003 Spanish 15 Mar 2002 1 Mar 2001 - 31 Aug 2001 29 Colombia 6 Aug 2002 1 Sept 2001 - 30 Apr 2002 27 May 2003 1 Mar 2003 – 30 Apr 2003 Spanish 30 Comoros 20 Apr 2003 1 Feb 2003 – 31 Dec 2003 French 31 Congo 12 Sep 2002 -- - Aug 2002 French 3 Sep 2001 32 Costa Rica 20 Feb 2002 1996 - 1999 Spanish 33 Côte d’Ivoire 4 Cameroon submitted an initial report prior its ratification of the Convention 5 Pursuant to Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Central African Republic has not yet been required to have submitted a report No State Date of submission Reporting period Language 3 Sep 1999 -- -July 1999 26 Jan 2001 1 Aug 1999 - 31 Dec 1999 30 May 2001 1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2000 26 Apr 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 34 Croatia 30 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 35 Cyprus 6 15 Aug 2000 Data valid as of 1 Jul 2000 30 Apr 2001 - 30 Apr 2001 30 Jun 2001 - 30 Jun 2001 3 May 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 36 Czech Republic 30 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 37 Democratic Republic of the Congo 30 Apr 2003 1 Nov 2002 - 30 Apr 2003 French 27 Aug 1999 -- - Aug 1999 7 Aug 2000 -- - 7 Aug 2000 30 Apr 2001 1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2000 29 Apr 2002 1 May 2001 - 30 Apr 2002 38 Denmark 30 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 39 Djibouti 16 Jan 2003 -- - 1 Oct 2002 French 20 Aug 2002 2001 - 2002 40 Dominica 25 Apr 2003 2002 - 2003 English 26 Sep 2001 41 28 May 2002 Jan 2001 - Dec 2001 Dominican Republic 28 Apr 2003 Spanish 29 Mar 2000 Apr 1999 - Mar 2000 23 Aug 2000 Mar 2000 - July 2000 5 Mar 2001 July 2000 - Mar 2001 31 May 2002 Mar 2001 - Apr 2002 42 Ecuador 30 Apr 2003 Spanish 31 Aug 2001 1 Jun 2000 - 31 Aug 2001 43 El Salvador 29 Apr 2002 1 Sept 2001 - 31 Mar 2002 4 Mar 2003 Spanish 44 Equatorial Guinea 12 Nov 1999 Nov 1998 - Nov 1999 45 Fiji 21 Aug 2002 1999 - 2000 21 Aug 2002 2000 - 2001 English 26 Aug 1999 -- - Jul 1999 3 May 2000 1 Aug 1999 - 31 Mar 2000 11 Jun 2001 March 2001 46 France 30 Apr 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 French 6 Pursuant to Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention, Cyprus has not yet been required to have submitted a report No State Date of submission Reporting period Language 30 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 47 Gabon 25 Sep 2002 10 Mar 1999 – 10 Mar 2003 French 48 Gambia 28 Aug 2002 English 31 Aug 1999 1 Mar 1999 - 1 Aug 1999 30 Apr 2000 1 Jan 1999 - 31 Dec 1999 30 Apr 2001 1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2000 16 Apr 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 49 Germany 10 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 50 Ghana 24 Jul 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 51 Grenada 13 Jul 2001 28 Aug 1998 –30 Apr 2001 English 2 Mar 2001 1999 - 2000 52 Guatemala 5 Jun 2002 Mar 2001 - Mar 2002 19 Aug 2003 Mar 2002 – Mar 2003 Spanish 53 Guinea 19 Jun 2002 22 Nov 2001 - 30 Apr 2002 54 Guinea-Bissau 13 May 2003 30 Apr 2002 – 30 Apr 2003 Portuguese 28 Aug 1999 Feb 1998 - Aug 1999 55 Holy See 5 Apr 2002 Jan 2000 - Dec 2001 26 Feb 2003 1 Jan 2002 – 31 Dec 2002 English 30 Aug 1999 1998 - 1999 56 Honduras 10 Aug 2001 Various periods 11 Apr 2002 Various periods Spanish 1 Oct 1999 1 Mar 1999 - 27 Aug 1999 25 Apr 2000 27 Aug 1999 - 25 Apr 2000 30 Apr 2001 1 May 2000 - 30 Apr 2001 24 Apr 2002 1 May 2001 - 30 Apr 2002 57 Hungary 10 Apr 2003 1 May 2002 - 30 Apr 2003 English 28 May 2002 1999 - 2002 58 Iceland 29 Apr 2003 30 Apr 2002 – 29 Apr 2003 English 16 Aug 1999 3 Dec 1997 - 16 Aug 1999 14 Apr 2000 16 Aug 1999 - 14 Apr 2000 18 Jun 2001 14 Apr 2000 - 27 Apr 2001 2 May 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 59 Ireland 25 Jun 2003 1 Jan 2002 – 31 Dec 2002 English 29 Mar 2000 Initial Report as of 31 Jan 2000 30 Apr 2001 17 Oct 1998 - 31 Dec 2000 2 May 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 60 Italy 16 Apr 2003 17 Oct 1998 – 31 Dec 2002 English 25 July 2000 Sept 1999 - Sept 2001 61 Jamaica 1 May 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 30 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 27 Aug 1999 1 Mar 1999 - 31 Mar 1999 28 Apr 2000 1 Apr 1999 - 31 Dec 1999 21 Jun 2001 1 Jan 2000 – 31 Dec 2000 24 Apr 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 62 Japan 28 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English No State Date of submission Reporting period Language 9 Aug 1999 1 May 1999 - 1 Sep 1999 Arabic 30 Jun 2000 1 Dec 1999 - 30 Jun 2000 English 63 Jordan 5 Jun 2002 Annual update 17 Mar 2003 1 May 2003 1 May 2002 – 30 Apr 2003 Arabic 27 Dec 2001 23 Jan 2001 - 28 Dec 2001 64 Kenya 4 Jun 2002 29 Dec 2001 - 30 Apr 2002 English 65 Kiribati 4 Dec 2001 7 Sep 2000 - 28 Aug 2001 English 17 Aug 2000 66 Lesotho 30 Apr 2003 30 Apr 2002 – 30 Apr 2003 English 18 Sep 2000 First National Report 3 Oct 2001 Second National Report 14 May 2002 Calendar year 2001 67 Liechtenstein 2 Jun 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 68 Lithuania 7 2 Jul 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 English 27 Apr 2001 Calendar year 1999 27 Apr 2001 Calendar year 2000 20 Jun 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 1 Jan 2002 69 Luxembourg 29 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 70 Madagascar 20 Jun 2001 31 Jan 2000 - 31 Jan 2001 French 71 Malawi 9 Apr 2003 Sep 2002 – Feb 2003 English 1 Mar 2000 1 Sep 1999 - 1 Mar 2000 9 May 2002 26 Aug 2002 72 Malaysia 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 17 Jun 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 73 Malawi 9 Apr 2003 Sep 2002 – Feb 2003 74 Maldives 17 Sep 2002 7 Sep 2000 – 30 Mar 2001 English 17 May 2001 75 Mali 31 Jul 2003 18 Jan 2001 – 17 Jan 2003 French 30 Apr 2002 1 Nov 2001 - 30 Apr 2002 76 Malta 6 Mar 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 20 Jun 2001 1 Jun 2001 - 1 Nov 2001 77 Mauritania 12 Jun 2002 1 Jun 2001 - 1 Jun 2002 30 Apr 2003 1 Jun 2002 – 30 Apr 2003 French 20 May 2002 30 Apr 2001 - 30 Apr 2002 78 Mauritius 25 Apr 2003 11 Mar 2002 – 30 Apr 2003 English 24 Sep 1999 1998 - 1999 7 Feb 2000 1999 - 2000 23 Apr 2001 2000 - 2001 8 Apr 2002 2001 - 2002 79 Mexico 17 Mar 2003 2002 - 2003 Spanish 10 May 2001 80 Monaco 14 Mar 2002 3 Jun 2003 French 7 Lithuania submitted an initial report prior its ratification of the Convention No State Date of submission Reporting period Language 30 Mar 2000 1 Mar 1999 - 31 Aug 1999 English 30 Oct 2001 1 Sep 1999 - 31 Dec 2000 English/ Portuguese 2 Jul 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 81 Mozambique 13 May 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 82 Nauru 83 Namibia 7 Jan 2000 1 Mar 1999 - 31Dec 1999 20 Apr 2001 1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2000 19 Apr 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 84 Netherlands Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 27 Dec 1999 1 Jul 1999 - 27 Dec 1999 18 May 2001 27 Dec 1999 - 31 Dec 2000 29 Apr 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 85 New Zealand 2 May 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 30 Sep 1999 -- - Sep 1999 18 May 2000 7 May 2001 -- - 20 Apr 2001 22 May 2002 -- - 30 Mar 2002 86 Nicaragua 31 Mar 2003 -- - 31 Mar 2003 Spanish 12 Sep 2002 Apr 2001 – Jul 2002 87 Niger 4 Apr 2003 May 2001 – 31 Mar 2003 French 88 Nigeria 2 Sep 1999 -- - 31 Aug 1999 89 Niue 18 Feb 2002 English 26 Aug 1999 1 Mar 1999 - 26 Aug 1999 23 Aug 2000 23 Aug1999 - 22 Aug 2000 11 Jun 2001 1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2000 3 May 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 90 Norway 30 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 16 Apr 2002 91 Panama 7 May 2003 Spanish 13 Jun 2001 17 Dec 2000 – 1 May 2001 92 Paraguay 18 Oct 2002 1 Jan 2002 – 6 Jun 2002 Spanish 2 May 2000 -- - Mar 2000 4 May 2001 Mar 2000 - Mar 2001 16 May 2002 Mar 2001 - Mar 2002 93 Peru Apr 2003 Mar 2002 - Mar 2003 Spanish 12 Sep 2000 12 Sep 2000 - 29 Apr 2001 13 Aug 2001 30 Apr 2001 - 29 Apr 2002 5 Apr 2002 29 Apr 2001 - 4 Apr 2002 94 Philippines 14 May 2003 30 Apr 2002 – 30 Apr 2003 English 1 Feb 2000 3 Dec 1997 - 31 Jan 2000 95 Portugal 30 Apr 2001 3 Dec 1997 - 31 Jan 2001 9 Sep 2002 Calendar year 2001 English No State Date of submission Reporting period Language 96 Qatar 23 Apr2003 Arabic 8 Apr 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 97 Republic of Moldova 17 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 27 Jan 2002 1 May 2001 - 1 Oct 2001 98 Romania 18 Apr 2002 2 Oct 2001 - 8 Apr 2002 1 Apr 2003 8 Apr 2002 – 8 Apr 2003 English 4 Sep 2001 1 Feb 2001 - 31 Aug 2001 99 Rwanda 22 Apr 2003 May 2001 – Apr 2003 English 100 Saint Kitts and Nevis 27 Nov 1999 1 Mar 1999 - 27 Nov 1999 English 101 Saint Lucia 102 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 103 Samoa 24 Jun 2002 Jan 1999 - Jun 2002 English 29 Oct 2001 104 San Marino 7 Aug 2002 English 1 Sep 1999 1 Mar 1999 - 30 Aug 1999 27 Mar 2001 1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2000 22 Apr 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 1 Apr 2002 105 Senegal 6 May 2003 1 Jan 2002 – 31 Dec 2002 French 106 Seychelles 13 Feb 2003 Dec 2000 – Dec 2002 English 107 Sierra Leone 9 Dec 1999 3 Dec 1997 - 30 Nov 1999 12 Jun 2000 1 Dec 1999 - 30 Apr 2000 25 Jul 2001 1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2000 30 Apr 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 108 Slovakia 1 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 7 Sep 1999 1 Apr 1999 - 30 Sep 1999 30 Jan 2001 1 Oct 1999 - 30 Apr 2000 1 Apr 2001 1 May 2000 - 30 Apr 2001 16 Apt 2002 1 May 2001 - 30 Apr 2002 109 Slovenia 30 Apt 2003 1 May 2002 - 30 Apr 2003 English 110 Solomon Islands 1 Sep 1999 1 Mar 1999 - 1 Sep 1999 30 Aug 2000 28 Aug 1999 - 31 Dec1999 17 Sep 2001 1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2000 28 May 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 111 South Africa 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2003 English 15 Dec 1999 1 Jul 1999 - 28 Dec 1999 112 Spain 15 Apr 2001 28 Dec 1999 - 31 Dec 2000 7 Jun 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 Spanish 113 Suriname Sep 2003 Apr 2003 – Aug 2003 English 114 Swaziland 16 Feb 2000 1 Jul 1999 - 30 Jan 1999 English No State Date of submission Reporting period Language 29 Oct 1999 1 May 1999 - 30 Sep 1999 14 Jun 2000 1 Sep 1999 - 1 Apr 2000 30 Apr 2001 1 Apr 2000 - 1 Apr 2001 25 Apr 2002 1 Apr 2001 - 1 Apr 2002 115 Sweden 30 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 4 Aug 1999 1 Mar 1999 - 20 Aug 1999 11 Apr 2000 Calendar year 1999 28 Mar 2001 Calendar year 2000 30 Apr 2002 Calendar year 2001 116 Switzerland 30 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 – 31 Dec 2002 English 117 Tajikistan 3 Feb 2003 1 Jan 2002 – 31 Dec 2002 Russian 118 Tanzania 5 Feb 2003 30 Apr 2003 1 May 2001 – 28 Oct 2002 English 10 Nov 1999 1 May 1999 - 31 Oct 1999 2 May 2000 1 Nov 1999 - 31 Jan 2000 17 Apr 2001 1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2000 30 Apr 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 119 Thailand 29 Apr 2003 English 25 May 1999 4 Dec 1997 - 31 Mar 1999 25 Jun 2002 30 Apr 2001 - 30 Apr 2002 120 The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 24 Feb 2003 15 Apr 2003 6 Nov 2002 - -- English 121 Togo 20 Mar 2003 French 122 Trinidad and Tobago 30 Aug 2002 Aug 1999 – Aug 2001 English 9 Jul 2000 1 Jan 2000 - 30 Jun 2000 123 Tunisia 4 Oct 2002 1 Jul – 10 Sep 2002 7 May 2003 12 Dec 2002 – 15 Apr 2003 French 124 Turkmenistan 14 Nov 2001 Russian 24 May 2002 28 Jan 2000 – 24 May 2002 125 Uganda 24 Jul 2003 24 May 2002 – 23 Jul 2003 26 Aug1999 1 Mar 1999 - 1 Aug 1999 17 Apr 2000 1 Aug 1999 - 1 Apr 2000 25 April 2001 1 Apr 2000 - 31 Dec 2000 21 Mar 2002 1 Jan 2001 - 31 Dec 2001 126 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 30 Apr 2003 1 Jan 2002 - 31 Dec 2002 English 127 Uruguay 23 Apr 2002 3 Dec 2002 Apr 2001 - Apr 2002 Spanish 10 Sep 2002 Various dates 128 Venezuela 1 May 2003 Apr 2002 – Apr 2003 Spanish 30 Nov 1999 4 Dec 1997 - 30 Nov 1999 14 Nov 2000 30 Nov 1999 - 14 Nov 2000 8 Sept 2001 14 Nov 2000 - 8 Sept 2001 27 Apr 2002 8 Sep 2001 - 27 Apr 2002 129 Yemen 10 Apr 2003 27 Apr 2002 – 10 Apr 2003 English 130 Zambia 31 Aug 2001 1 Apr 2001 - 31 Aug 2001 English No State Date of submission Reporting period Language 11 Jan 2000 Aug 1999 - Jan 2000 131 Zimbabwe 4 Apr 2001 Jan 2000 - Dec 2000 13 Feb 2003 Jan 2002 – Dec 2003 English III. SUMMARY OF THE REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES NOT-PARTY ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS PURSUANT TO RELEVANT UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS As of 4 September 2003 132 Latvia 1 May 2003 1 Jan 2002 – 31 Dec 2002 English 133 Poland 5 Mar 2003 -- - 31 Dec 2002 English Annex 1 CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE, STOCKPILING, PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES AND ON THEIR DESTRUCTION Reporting Formats for Article 7 Tables of formats may be expanded as desired [In future years, cite article 7, paragraphs 2 and 3 regarding annual updates] NAME OF STATE [PARTY]: Form B Stockpiled anti-personnel mines Article 7. 1 "Each State Partyshall report to the Secretary-General ... on: b) The total of all stockpiled anti-personnel mines owned or possessed by it, or under its jurisdiction or control, to include a breakdown of the type, quantity and, if possible, lot numbers of each type of anti-personnel mine stockpiled." State [Party]: Form D APMs retained or transferred Article 7.1 "Each State Party shall report to the Secretary-General ... on: d) The types, quantities and, if possible, lot numbers of all anti-personnel mines retained or transferred for the development of and training in mine detection, mine clearance or mine destruction techniques, or transferred for the purpose of destruction, as well as the institutions authorized by a State Party to retain or transfer anti-personnel mines, in accordance with Article 3" State [Party]: Form E Status of programs for conversion or de -commissioning of APMproduction facilities Article 7.1 "Each State Party shall report to the Secretary-General ... on: e) The status of programs for the conversion or de-commissioning of anti-personnel mine production facilities." State [Party]: Form G APMs destroyed after entry into force Article 7.1 "Each StateParty shall report to the Secretary-General ... on: g) The types and quantities of all anti-personnel mines destroyed after the entry into force of this Convention for that State Party, to include a breakdown of the quantity of each type of anti-personnel mine destroyed, in accordance with Articles 4 and 5, respectively, along with, if possible, the lot numbers of each type anti-personnel mine in the case of destruction in accordance with Article 4" State [Party]: Form H (cont’d) 2. Technical characteristics of each APM-type currently owned or possessed Explosive Content Type Dimensions Fusing type grams Metallic content Colour photo attached Supplementary information to facilitate mine clearance. Form I Measures to provide warning to the population Article 7.1 "Each State Party shall report to the Secretary-General ... on: i) The measures taken to provide an immediate and effective warning to the population in relation to all areas identified under paragraph 2 of Article 5." Remark: In accordance with Article 5, para.2: "Each State Party shall make every effort to identify all areas under its jurisdiction or control in which anti-personnel mines are known or suspected to be emplaced and shall ensure as soon as possible that all anti-personnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control are perimeter-marked, monitored and protected by fencing or other means, to ensure the effective exclusion of civilians, until all anti-personnel mines contained therein have been destroyed. The marking shall at least be to the standards set out in the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, as amended on 3 May 1996, annexed to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects". State [Party]: Annex 2 COVER PAGE OF THE ANNUAL ARTICLE 7 REPORT NAME OF STATE [PARTY]:

563598

United Nations E/CN.15/2005/13 Economic and Social Council Distr.: General 8 April 2005 Original:English V.05-83014 (E) 040505 050505 *0583014* Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Fourteenth session Vienna, 23-27 May 2005 Item 7 of the provisional agenda* Strengthening international cooperation and technical assistance in preventing and combating terrorism Strengthening international cooperation and technical assistance in promoting the implementation of the universal conventions and protocols related to terrorism within the framework of the activities of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Report of the Secretary-General** Summary The present report has been prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution 59/153 of 20 December 2004, entitled “Strengthening international cooperation and technical assistance in promoting the implementation of the universal conventions and protocols related to terrorism within the framework of the activities of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime”. It reviews the progress made in technical assistance delivery by the Terrorism Prevention Branch of the Division for Treaty Affairs of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and presents guidelines and proposals concerning the future approach to technical assistance for consideration by the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. The report also provides data on the status of ratification of the universal conventions and protocols related to terrorism and on voluntary contributions received by the Branch. It concludes with general remarks and recommendations. Contents Paragraphs Page I. Introduction ......................................................... 1-6 3 II. Putting technical cooperation to work .................................... 7-27 4 A. Bilateral activities................................................ 7-9 4 B. Regional and subregional frameworks ............................... 10-19 6 C. Intensifying efforts by presence in the field ........................... 20-21 9 D. Working together: a multiplier effect ................................ 22-27 10 III. Technical cooperation approach......................................... 28-40 11 A. An integrated, synergistic approach ................................. 28-31 11 B. The fight against terrorism in the context of building fair criminal justice systems and the rule of law ........................................ 32-34 12 C. International cooperation against terrorism ........................... 35-39 13 D. Guidelines for technical cooperation................................. 40 14 IV. Technical cooperation tools ............................................ 41-46 14 V. Ratification of the universal instruments related to terrorism: measuring progress 47-48 15 VI. Resources and expenditures ............................................ 49-53 16 VII. Conclusions and recommendations ...................................... 54-57 19 .Annex. Guidelines for technical assistance to combat terrorism ............................... . 21 I. Introduction 1. The year under review has been a challenging one for the United Nations, but the challenges have created an opportunity to debate change in the Organization. In that spirit, the Secretary-General appointed a High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change to examine the threats faced, to evaluate existing policies, processes and institutions and to make bold and practicable recommendations. On 1 December 2004 the High-level Panel presented a report, “A more secure world: our shared responsibility” (A/59/565 and Corr.1), in which it identified terrorism as one of the six main threats to international peace and security and highlighted the interconnectivity of those threats. The Panel recommended that the United Nations, with the Secretary-General taking a lead role, promote a comprehensive strategy that incorporated, but was broader than coercive measures. 2. On 10 March 2005, the Secretary-General presented the main elements of that strategy, entitled “A Global Strategy for Fighting Terrorism”, and the role of the United Nations in implementing it, to the International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security, held in Madrid from 8 to 11 March 2005. In so doing he enunciated his vision of a principled, effective strategy against terrorism that respected and protected the rule of law and universal human rights, which could be characterized by what he called the five “Ds”: dissuasion, denial, deterrence, development of state capacity and defence of human rights (see http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sgsm9757.doc.htm). In his address to the Summit, the Secretary-General stressed that enhancing coordination was one of the priorities of the United Nations and called on all entities of the United Nations system to contribute to implementing the Global Strategy. He announced the creation of an implementation task force that would meet regularly to review the fight against terrorism and related issues throughout the United Nations system and to make sure that all parts of it played their proper role. 3. The Global Strategy will have an impact on the work of the Terrorism Prevention Branch of the Division for Treaty Affairs of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). In particular with regard to coordination, the past year saw changes in the way the Terrorism Prevention Branch conducted its work. The creation by the Security Council in its resolution 1535 (2004) of 26 March 2004 of the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate and the appointment of its Executive Director, Javier Rupérez, at the Assistant Secretary-General level, has further strengthened the existing mechanisms for coordination of counter-terrorism activities worldwide. The enhanced ability of the Counter-Terrorism Committee to monitor and evaluate the implementation of resolution 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001 and its assumption of a more proactive role in the dialogue with Member States, including visits to States to engage in detailed monitoring of the implementation of resolution 1373 (2001), has important implications for the work of providers of technical assistance such as the Terrorism Prevention Branch. This is particularly the case, since the Council, in its resolution 1535 (2004), recognized that such visits should be conducted, when appropriate, in close cooperation with relevant international, regional and subregional organizations and other United Nations bodies, including UNODC, in particular with its Terrorism Prevention Branch, taking special care of the assistance that might be available to address States’ needs. 4. In its resolution 59/153 of 20 December 2004, the General Assembly requested UNODC to intensify its efforts to provide technical assistance in preventing and combating terrorism through the implementation of the universal instruments related to terrorism. The activities of the Terrorism Prevention Branch aimed at providing assistance to States in reviewing and revising national legislation against terrorism have again been numerous in the year under review, while at the same time increasingly addressing the issue of qualitative follow-up to initial assistance activities as also the issue of legislative incorporation and implementation of the universal instruments. By moving into follow-up, the Branch was also in a position to evaluate the impact of its initial activities and to measure progress made by States. 5. In order to facilitate its follow-up activities, new technical assistance tools have been developed by the Branch, focusing on legislative incorporation and international coordination. A guide for the legislative incorporation and implementation of the universal instruments related to terrorism has been drafted, taking the existing Legislative Guide to the Universal Anti-Terrorism Conventions and Protocols1 one step further. A training manual to complement the guide is planned. As regards international cooperation, UNODC finalized the Model Law on Extradition (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/model_law_extradition.pdf) and started work on a draft model law on mutual legal assistance. The two model laws are important additions to the existing body of UNODC technical assistance tools for international cooperation. A compendium of all those tools is forthcoming. 6. In addition to the technical cooperation activities undertaken by the Branch, work has focused on the substantive preparations for the Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, to be held in Bangkok from 18 to 25 April 2005. Terrorism will take a prominent place at the Eleventh Congress, with a substantive item on international cooperation against terrorism and links between terrorism and other criminal activities in the context of the work of UNODC and a workshop on measures to combat terrorism, with reference to the relevant international conventions and protocols, organized jointly by UNODC and the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences. Furthermore, an ancillary meeting on upholding the rule of law while fighting terrorism will be organized by the International Association of Penal Law, the International Commission of Catholic Prison Pastoral Care and the Intergovernmental Agency of la Francophonie. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 59/153, the Eleventh Congress will also discuss the guidelines for technical assistance to combat terrorism, with a view to their consideration by the Commission (see the annex to the present report). II. Putting technical cooperation to work A. Bilateral activities 7. In the year under review, direct bilateral cooperation missions were conducted to 26 countries, upon request, focusing mainly on providing legal advisory services on the incorporation of the relevant provisions of the international instruments into national legislation, as well as assistance for the implementation of the legislation, including international cooperation mechanisms. In some cases, UNODC experts helped States compile the elements needed for completion of their reports to the Counter-Terrorism Committee in response to Security Council resolution 1373 (2001). Two bilateral assistance activities are described below as examples of the consultative nature and type of cooperation activities the Branch engages in. 8. Pursuant to a request formulated by the Government of Afghanistan in its supplementary report to the Counter-Terrorism Committee (S/2003/353) and in coordination with the Afghan authorities, UNODC sent a technical assistance mission to Kabul from 5 to 12 June 2004 to provide advice to the Afghan authorities on legislative measures needed to combat terrorism and transnational organized crime. The existing legislation was reviewed and the ministers of justice and education identified the fight against terrorism as a priority for their country, requesting UNODC to assist in drafting legislation to fight terrorism and to discuss the proposed draft law and/or relevant amendments to the penal code with the relevant ministries. Following the drafting and translation of the law and amendments to the Penal Code and the External and Internal Security Act, a legislative drafting workshop was held in Vienna from 22 to 24 November 2004, attended by representatives of the ministries of justice, foreign affairs, the interior and finance. The participants agreed to take into account the recommendations of the meeting and have subsequently forwarded a revised draft counter-terrorism law for comments. UNODC has provided comments to the Afghan authorities and further consultations to finalize the draft are envisaged. 9. Subsequent to a request by the Government of Paraguay, UNODC in July 2004 sent comments on draft counter-terrorism legislation to the working group charged with drawing up the new legislation. Prior to that, the Security Council had on several occasions called upon Paraguay to urgently adopt internal legislative measures in full compliance with Council resolution 1373 (2001). After coordination with the Paraguayan authorities, a joint legal assistance mission to Asunción was conducted from 27 November to 3 December 2004 by the Counter￾Terrorism Committee, UNODC, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism (CICTE) of the Organization of American States (OAS). The Paraguayan authorities informed the mission that Paraguay had deposited its instruments of ratification of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation2 and the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf.3 The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (General Assembly resolution 54/109, annex) and the Inter-American Convention against Terrorism (A/56/1002-S/2002/745, annex) were ratified shortly thereafter. Thus, Paraguay joined Bolivia, Chile, Peru and Uruguay in the group of countries of South America that had ratified all the universal instruments related to terrorism. With regard to the process of drafting national legislation incorporating the provisions of the instruments into domestic legislation, a national workshop was organized and attended by high-level representatives of the Supreme Court of Justice, the ministries of foreign affairs, national defence, economy and finance and justice, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Superintendence of Banks. The Paraguayan officials presented draft legislation, on which the mission offered specific comments and advice with a view to ensuring the full incorporation of the requirements of the universal instruments. Subsequently, Paraguay submitted draft legislation to its Congress incorporating the requirements of the universal instruments in March 2005. Planned future activities include a joint CICTE/ OAS/UNODC/Common Market of the Southern Cone (MERCOSUR) seminar on freezing of terrorist assets, to be hosted by the Government of Paraguay in Asunción in May/June 2005. B. Regional and subregional frameworks 10. During the year under review, efforts were made by UNODC to draw up frameworks for regional activities under its global project on strengthening the legal regime against terrorism. The aim of such regional frameworks was to enhance the planning and monitoring of the various activities conducted in specific regions and to harmonize the efforts of States in the same region or subregion. At the same time, they were a response to requests from various donor Governments that wished their contributions to be earmarked for use in particular countries and regions. 11. The UNODC Regional Office for the Middle East and North Africa in Cairo has taken the lead in this area of work and has, in cooperation with the Terrorism Prevention Branch, developed a regional action plan to combat terrorism, taking into full account regional specificities and needs. The regional action plan foresees: (a) provision of substantive legal advice on the ratification of the international instruments related to terrorism and on the incorporation of relevant provisions into domestic legislation; (b) support for the legislative adoption of the new provisions against terrorism; (c) training for criminal justice officials in the effective implementation of national legislation; (d) support for effective participation in international cooperation at the regional and global levels; and (e) support for raising public awareness of the counter-terrorism instruments and counter-terrorism issues in general. 12. The action plan builds upon counter-terrorism work conducted by UNODC in the region in 2004, including with Jordan, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates on international cooperation in criminal matters and the ratification of the universal instruments related to terrorism. Other activities in this priority region included the organization of a regional training workshop on drugs and organized crime for the member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of the Arab region, organized in Manama from 25 November to 1 December 2004 by UNODC and the Naif Arab University for Security Sciences and hosted by the Government of Bahrain. Participating criminal justice officials agreed to accelerate the process of ratification and upgrading of national laws in order to effectively implement the universal instruments; to develop mutual assistance infrastructures and capacities; to enhance regional cooperation; to organize appropriate training for key actors, judges and prosecutors at the national and regional levels; and to put in place all the central authorities required for cooperation. 13. A national workshop on international cooperation against terrorism was organized in Cairo on 21 and 22 December 2004 by UNODC and the Egyptian National Committee on Combating Terrorism. High-level Egyptian officials, including chief justices, members of the civil and military judiciary, prosecutors, ambassadors, law enforcement officers and university professors, attended the meeting, the main objective of which was to share information and practical experience in matters related to methods and techniques of combating terrorism, including related legal aspects. The results of the workshop and the experiencegained will serve in the organization of other national workshops in the region in the context of UNODC’s regional action plan. Participants recommended the establishment of national committees to combat terrorism that would coordinate action at the national and regional levels and emphasized the urgency of creating a training centre under the auspices of the UNODC Regional Office for the Middle East and North Africa to provide specialized training in combating organized crime, terrorism, corruption and money-laundering. (The call for such a regional training centre was reiterated at the Arab regional symposium on combating terrorism held in Cairo on 16 and 17 February 2005.) Participants also agreed to bolster efforts to ratify and implement the universal instruments related to terrorism. 14. A regional component has also been developed for the Terrorism Prevention Branch’s technical cooperation with Latin America and the Caribbean. Together with CICTE/OAS and the Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, the Branch conceptualized a set of regional activities aimed at strengthening regional cooperation through the ratification and implementation of the universal instruments related to terrorism, the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (General Assembly resolution 55/25, annex I) and the Protocols thereto and the United Nations Convention against Corruption (resolution 58/4, annex). Expert workshops have been conducted on the drafting of legislation and implementation of those instruments and the Inter-American Convention against Terrorism. The decision was taken to target initially those countries of the region which had at the time ratified the Inter-American Convention. The first workshop was held in San José from 20 to 22 January 2004 for representatives of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and Peru. Subsequently, bilateral assistance was provided to Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Peru. From 14 to 16 March 2005 a follow-up workshop was held in San José to review the progress made. The review of participating States’ legislation and/or draft legislation pending parliamentary approval showed that progress made between January 2004 and March 2005 had been considerable. An initial expert workshop for States that had not yet ratified the Inter-American Convention against Terrorism—Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)—was held in San José from 2 to 10 October 2004. 15. Real progress at the subregional level can also be seen with regard to the French-speaking countries of Africa. The Regional Ministerial Conference of French-speaking Countries of Africa for the promotion of ratification of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols thereto was organized in Cairo from 2 to 4 September 2003, by UNODC, the Intergovernmental Agency of la Francophonie and the Government of Egypt. Representatives of Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, the Niger, the Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal and Togo attended the Conference, at the end of which their commitment to speedy ratification and implementation of the universal instruments related to terrorism was enshrined in the Cairo Declaration (A/C.3/58/4, annex). 16. A little over one year later, the Regional Ministerial Conference of French￾speaking Countries of Africa for the ratification and implementation of the universal instruments against terrorism and the Organized Crime Convention and the Convention against Corruption was held in Port-Louis from 25 to 27 October 2004 to examine progress made in the ratification and implementation of the instruments. The Conference was organized by UNODC, the Intergovernmental Agency of la Francophonie and the Government of Mauritius. Again a large number of French￾speaking African countries were represented: Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Togo and Tunisia. The increased rate of ratification of almost 50 per cent demonstrated the commitment of the Governments and the progress made. Between the two conferences, UNODC had provided bilateral technical cooperation and legal assistance to 11 countries4 to enable them to become parties to and implement the universal instruments against terrorism and transnational organized crime. A further significant increase in the ratification and legislative implementation processes by French-speaking African countries is expected by the time of the third conference, to be held in Dakar in 2005. 17. The Terrorism Prevention Branch has intensified its technical cooperation activities with the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and Central Asia. In April 2004, experts of the Branch provided substantive inputs to the third joint session of the Council of Foreign Ministers, the Coordinating Council of Prosecutors General, the Council of Heads of Security Bodies and Special Services, the Council of Commanders-in-Chief of Frontier Troops and the Council of Heads of Customs Services of CIS, including an extensive review of a CIS Model Law on Terrorism that had been adopted by the Interparliamentary Assembly of Member Nations of CIS in December 2004. A regional workshop on legislative implementation and international cooperation was organized from 5 to 7 April 2005 in Tashkent by the Branch, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Participants included representatives of Afghanistan, China, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, as well as of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), CIS and the South-East Asia Regional Centre for Counter-Terrorism (SEARCCT). Belarus, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, after having received technical assistance from the Terrorism Prevention Branch in the form of bilateral assistance missions conducted in 2003 and 2004, have become parties to all 12 universal counter-terrorism instruments. 18. As regards Asia and the Pacific, the Terrorism Prevention Branch has been actively involved in the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime and has structured its assistance in line with the priorities determined under the Process. At the Regional Ministerial Meeting on Counter-Terrorism held in Bali, Indonesia, on 4 and 5 February 2004, ministers agreed to establish an ad hoc working group of senior legal officials from the region that would report on the adequacy of regional legal frameworks for counter￾terrorism cooperation and identify new areas for improvement of cooperation and assistance. The Branch participated in the first meeting of the Legal Issues Working Group, chaired by Australia in Canberra on 4 and 5 August 2004. Delegates representing 24 countries, including many of the Pacific island countries, and several regional and international organizations and bodies, attended the meeting. The meeting created two subgroups, one, chaired by Japan, on offences whose criminalization is required in order to provide an effective regime to deal with terrorism and one on international legal cooperation, chaired by Thailand. The Branch was invited to make a substantive contribution to the work of both subgroups. Japan organized a Seminar on the Promotion of Accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism in Tokyo on 2 December 2004, at which the Branch participated. It also contributed to the workshop on international legal cooperation organized by Thailand in January 2005. The Branch has been invited by both chairs (Japan and Thailand) to continue to contribute to the work of the subgroups. 19. Regional and subregional workshops have been conducted in the year under review as follows: (a) A regional workshop on the ratification and implementation of the universal instruments against terrorism, the Organized Crime Convention and the Convention against Corruption, as well as on the drafting of reports to the Counter￾Terrorism Committee of the Security Council, was held in Praia from 8 to 10 December 2004, organized in cooperation with the Government of Cape Verde. The following countries participated: Angola, Benin, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nigeria, Republic of the Congo, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo; (b) The Expert Workshop on International Cooperation on Counter￾Terrorism, Corruption and the Fight against Transnational Crime was held in Zagreb from 7 to 9 March 2005. It brought together participants from Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, together with representatives of 12 regional and international organizations, including OHCHR, the Council of Europe, Eurojust, the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), the European Commission and the Council of the European Union. Participants reviewed legislative requirements emanating from the universal instruments related to terrorism, the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the Organized Crime Convention and simulated case studies involving those issues and international cooperation. The Zagreb Declaration on International Cooperation on Counter-Terrorism, Corruption and the Fight against Transnational Organized Crime adopted at the workshop (A/59/754-S/2005/197, annex) includes 20 conclusions on best practices and guiding principles in the fight against terrorism, transnational organized crime and corruption. C. Intensifying efforts by presence in the field 20. In order to support the implementation of the Terrorism Prevention Branch’s activities in the field, regional-level experts—many of them on a part-time basis in order to make the most efficient use of resources—were based in a number of strategic locations in order, to provide on the ground for follow-up activities: two experts were based in Cairo to cover the Middle East and North Africa; and two experts responsible for Latin America and the Caribbean were based at the Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in Costa Rica and in Buenos Aires. In order to follow up on the Branch’s expanding activities in CIS and Central Asia, experts were based in Moscow and at the UNODC Regional Office for Central Asia in Tashkent. Two experts based in Singapore and in Bangkok covered the Asian region, while an expert based in Canberra followed activities in the Pacific region. The experts met in Vienna from 7 to 11 February 2005 to be briefed on the activities of UNODC and the approach to technical assistance, to exchange experience and knowledge and to familiarize themselves with each other’s work and expertise. 21. The creation of advisory panels for specific geographical regions and legal systems to review proposed legislative solutions and provide specific input appropriate to the regions’ particular historical and legal traditions and jurisprudence, as well as the placement of mentors to provide longer-term in-depth follow-up, is also envisaged. D. Working together: a multiplier effect 22. The technical assistance activities of the Terrorism Prevention Branch are undertaken in compliance with the decisions and policy guidance of the Counter￾Terrorism Committee of the Security Council and in close coordination with the work of the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate. The Committee and its Executive Directorate provide guidance for the counter-terrorism work of the United Nations; they analyse the reports received from Member States pursuant to resolutions of the Council and facilitate and coordinate the provision of technical assistance to requesting States. UNODC delivers legislative and advisory services, upon request, drawing on its specialized substantive expertise: its technical assistance functions are intended to complement the normative, policy making and monitoring functions of the Counter-Terrorism Committee and its Executive Directorate. 23. As a follow-up to the special meeting organized by the Counter-Terrorism Committee on 6 March 2003, OSCE, in cooperation with UNODC, hosted a meeting between international, regional and subregional organizations in Vienna on 11 and 12 March 2004 on strengthening practical cooperation between regional and international organizations. The proceedings of the meeting appear in a joint OSCE/UNODC publication. 24. The Branch made further progress towards maximizing impact and avoiding duplication of efforts by establishing operational partnerships: technical assistance activities were undertaken in close collaboration with numerous international, regional and subregional organizations, such as OAS, OSCE, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Intergovernmental Agency of la Francophonie, the Economic Community of West African States, the Economic Community of Central African States and the International Civil Aviation Organization. Several legislative advisory activities were conducted with IMF, including an assessment of Italy’s system to counter money-laundering and the financing of terrorism. The assessment was conducted from 4 to 14 April 2005 using the joint methodology for evaluating compliance developed by the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, IMF and the World Bank.5 OHCHR is UNODC’s partner in implementing programme activities related to the rule of law and terrorism. The Terrorism Prevention Branch has contributed to numerous technical cooperation-related activities of these partner organizations, providing substantive input on the universal instruments related to terrorism and Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) and on increasing international cooperation in that regard. 25. UNODC has made substantive and technical presentations on programme activities in a variety of international forums, including the Counter-Terrorism Committee, the Counter-Terrorism Action Group of the Group of Eight and the Working Party on Terrorism of the Council of the European Union. At the request of Interpol, UNODC prepared a report on current trends in international instruments to abolish the political offence exception for political violence for submission to the Working Group on Article 3 of the Interpol Constitution with respect to political offences. 26. The Branch also worked closely with the Office of Legal Affairs of the Secretariat, which provided relevant advice and substantive elements related to the development of UNODC’s technical assistance tools. Further, UNODC has engaged in discussions with the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) of 15 October 1999 concerning Al-Qaida and the Taliban and associated individuals and entities, as well as the Security Council Working Group established pursuant to resolution 1566 (2004) of 8 October 2004, on how UNODC activities could support the work of the two bodies, in particular concerning the criminal justice aspects of their work and more specifically issues related to victims of terrorism. 27. In order to ensure transparency, the Terrorism Prevention Branch continued its practice of providing, on a periodic basis, detailed briefings to Member States on progress made in programme delivery. A brochure reflecting the work of the Branch has been updated regularly and is available online (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/brochure_gpt_may2004%20.pdf). The Branch continued to produce and disseminate on a monthly basis a matrix of its ongoing and planned technical assistance activities per country and region. An issue of the journal Forum on Crime and Society devoted to terrorism is forthcoming. III. Technical cooperation approach A. An integrated, synergistic approach 28. The close connection between international terrorism and transnational organized crime was already noted in Security Council resolution 1373 (2001), in which the Council emphasized the need to enhance coordination of efforts at the national, subregional, regional and international levels. This has been further highlighted in the report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change in which the High-level Panel noted that today, more than ever before, security threats (including terrorism and organized crime) were interrelated. In his report entitled “In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all” (A/59/2005), the Secretary-General reiterated that the threat of terrorism was closely linked to that of organized crime, which was growing and affected the security of all States. Organized crime contributed to state weakness, impeded economic growth, fuelled many civil wars and provided financing mechanisms to terrorist groups. 29. Against this background, UNODC has made efforts to provide responses to illicit drugs, crime and terrorism that are integrated and synergistic. The close linkages between and interrelatedness of the threats of terrorism and organized crime call for international, regional and national responses that take into account and combine the lessons learned from fighting each type of crime. Both the international community and national authorities can benefit from the use of mechanisms and instruments initially set up to combat transnational organized crime and money-laundering when they are fighting terrorist groups and their financial activities. UNODC technical assistance activities have taken this into account and have encouraged States to bear in mind the interconnectivity of threats when drafting and amending laws and building capacity against terrorism and transnational organized crime and to address, to the extent possible, the requirements emanating from the relevant international instruments related to terrorism and transnational organized crime. 30. Strengthening the rule of law and building fair criminal justice systems are also important components in countering terrorism and need to be integrated into technical cooperation activities in those areas. Both terrorists and criminal groups benefit from a weak or absent State and have an interest in countering the efforts of law enforcement and government agencies. 31. Cooperation among States is the other important component in fighting the global threats of terrorism and organized crime. In order to provide States with a comprehensive set of standards and measures against terrorism and organized crime, UNODC’s technical cooperation programme encourages the incorporation of these components. B. The fight against terrorism in the context of building fair criminal justice systems and the rule of law 32. A new focus has been given to the activities of the Terrorism Prevention Branch by the introduction of a project component specifically addressing the fight against terrorism within the framework of the rule of law. As the international community perceives the terrorist threat to be increasing in severity and breadth, there is a corresponding danger of overreacting by implementing measures and mechanisms that may prove to be unnecessarily intrusive. In the aftermath of recent major terrorist attacks, many States have enacted new legislation or amended their existing legislation and have introduced new methods and practices to counter terrorism. These new laws should be fully in line with the principle of the rule of law and the international legal framework, in particular international human rights law. 33. Effective counter-terrorism measures and respect for the rule of law can go hand in hand. Measures can be taken and rights may even be suspended in times of a public emergency that threatens the life of a nation. States may invoke so-called emergency powers in the fight against terrorism, while striking a balance between individual rights, protection of the community and national security. Whatever emergency measures are taken must be based on the principle of legality, proportionality and necessity and be of limited duration; thus they may not affect non-derogable rights. In drafting legislation and implementing measures for the prevention of and fight against terrorism, the greatest challenge is to avoid unnecessary suppression of individual liberties. This concern has been addressed by the Secretary-General’s call upon Member States to appoint a special rapporteur who would report to the Commission on Human Rights on the compatibility of counter-terrorism measures with international human rights laws (A/59/2005, para. 94). 34. UNODC counter-terrorism assistance activities assist justice professionals and policymakers in making effective counter-terrorism measures compatible with the rule of law and respect for human rights. Promoting the rule of law in all the components of the crime programme constitutes the core function for which UNODC has received its mandate from the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Related activities will be formulated and undertaken in close consultation with OHCHR, with the aim of developing capacity to offer technical assistance to States on counter-terrorism and emergency measures with special emphasis on respect for the rule of law. Related issues are discussed in the section below. C. International cooperation against terrorism 35. The High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change has pointed out that no State, no matter how powerful, can by its own efforts alone make itself invulnerable to today’s threats. Every State requires the cooperation of other States to make itself secure. It is in every State’s interest, accordingly, to cooperate with other States to address their most pressing threats, because doing so will maximize the chances of reciprocal cooperation to address its own threat priorities (A/59/565, para. 24). 36. Given the advent of globalization, the development of international terrorism and the increased links between different forms of transnational crime, effective means of punishing such international acts need to be reinforced. Investigating and prosecuting cases against persons suspected of participation in organized crime or terrorist activities are often difficult. It is all the more difficult to try to bring a case together when the suspect, the victim, key evidence, key witnesses, key expertise or the profits of crime are located outside the State’s jurisdiction. While all forms of transnational crime, including terrorism, have benefited from globalization, States’ modalities of inter-State cooperation have remained largely fragmented and are often ineffective. For criminal justice practitioners confronted with modern organized crime and terrorism, relying on international cooperation has become a necessity. The international community has realized the increasingly global dimensions of terrorism and organized crime and has introduced a range of modalities and tools for international cooperation in criminal matters, such as extradition, mutual legal assistance, transfer of criminal proceedings, transfer of sentenced persons, recognition of foreign penal judgements, freezing and seizing of assets and law enforcement cooperation. 37. UNODC, with its extensive substantive expertise in international cooperation, has the ability to assist States in developing treaty relations at the various levels, in particular on the basis of the revised manuals on the Model Treaty on Extradition (General Assembly resolutions 45/116, annex, and 52/88, annex) and on the Model Treaty on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (resolution 45/117, annex). In that context, the Organized Crime Convention and the Convention against Corruption reflect in many ways the “state of the art” of international cooperation in criminal matters. 38. However, most States rely on domestic legislation to enact international cooperation modalities into law. Existing international cooperation depends almost entirely on the effectiveness of national legal systems. For example, one of the main objectives of an effective international cooperation regime is that there should be no safe haven for criminals. This requires the establishment of an adequate and comprehensive approach to jurisdiction, the aut dedere aut judicare principle— which requires that an accused person is either extradited or prosecuted—and more effective extradition procedures. Often States lack not only the legislative resources to engage in inter-State cooperation, but also the required expertise in their ministries of justice, the interior and foreign affairs to deal adequately with those processes. 39. UNODC will continue to cooperate with States in putting in place the required legislative framework for effective international cooperation to combat terrorism and will assist States in building the required capacity to implement the measures adopted. D. Guidelines for technical cooperation 40. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 58/136 of 22 December 2003, UNODC has prepared guidelines according to which assistance would be provided to promote the ratification of, accession to and implementation of the universal conventions and protocols and to identify specific elements of such assistance with a view to facilitating cooperation among Member States. The guidelines were developed by an expert group that met in Cape Town, South Africa, on 24 and 25 February 2004, for consideration by the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its fourteenth session. In accordance with Assembly resolution 59/153, the guidelines are being submitted to the Eleventh Congress for further discussion (see annex). IV. Technical cooperation tools 41. In order to carry out its technical cooperation activities effectively, UNODC has developed a variety of technical tools based on best practices identified by international experts that are used in the training of judicial and prosecutorial personnel in the proper implementation of the universal conventions and protocols related to terrorism. 42. In the area of international cooperation, UNODC has over the years prepared a series of specialized manuals and model laws on extradition and mutual legal assistance intended to allow States to make use of the guidance provided in order to prepare bilateral agreements and to draft relevant legislation against terrorism. UNODC, the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences and the Monitoring Centre on Organized Crime organized an expert group meeting on the preparation of model legislation on extradition in conjunction with a training workshop on extradition in terrorism cases, in Siracusa, Italy, from 2 to 6 December 2003. The two meetings served to upgrade skills in the field of extradition. 43. In 2004, UNODC issued a Legislative Guide to the Universal Anti-Terrorism Conventions and Protocols, which is both a guide for legislative drafters and a training tool in legislative assistance activities, and is distributing the work widely. In 2004, an independent evaluation of the tools and toolkits produced by UNODC in various areas described the Legislative Guide as a low-cost way of directly addressing an identified need, unambiguously connected to its users, that had directly facilitated UNODC’s technical assistance programme and the implemen￾tation of the global conventions, had linked tools to training, for cost-effectiveness, and was a model of handiness of presentation and readability in a difficult subject. 44. As a further tool to enhance the implementation of the universal instruments related to terrorism, UNODC is finalizing a guide for the legislative incorporation and implementation of those instruments. The draft guide goes further than the legislative guide, as it takes into account other obligations of States under international law, such as principles of human rights. It also provides an in-depth analysis of international cooperation, which is considered an integral part of legal measures against terrorism, and proposes a broad range of options and examples that national legislators can consider when incorporating new counter-terrorism measures into their national legislation. The guide will be submitted to the Commission as a conference room paper. 45. To further complement this work, UNODC has put together a Compendium of Legal Instruments and Useful Technical Assistance Tools to Prevent Terrorism and Other Related Forms of Crime. The Compendium, which lists relevant legislative guides, model laws, manuals and implementation tools relating to terrorism and other related crimes is available on the Internet (http://137.82.153.100/ Site%20Map/compendium/Compendium/index.htm) and as a CD-ROM. 46. In the year under review, UNODC has further developed its legislative database, which is used as an in-house tool to support the delivery of technical assistance. It contains the analysed and categorized counter-terrorism legislation of over 120 States, a selected bibliography on terrorism, as well as the jurisprudence of international courts on terrorism, and a range of technical cooperation tools. In order to further enhance the comprehensiveness of the database, the Office would welcome examples of national legislation effectively implementing the penalization, jurisdiction or international cooperation obligations of the universal instruments related to terrorism, as well as problems that may arise in drafting or applying such legislation. V. Ratification of the universal instruments related to terrorism: measuring progress 47. In its resolution 58/136, the General Assembly recommended that the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, in coordination with other United Nations entities, in particular the Counter-Terrorism Committee, keep under regular review the progress made by Member States in becoming parties to and implementing the universal conventions and protocols related to terrorism and the needs of Member States requesting assistance. 48. Member States have made considerable progress with regard to becoming parties to the universal instruments related to terrorism. The figure below provides the overall number of new States parties to the universal instruments, as well as new parties since the launch of the Terrorism Prevention Branch’s technical cooperation project to strengthen the legal regime against terrorism. Of the 61 States that have received bilateral assistance from the Branch since the launch of the project in October 2002, 40 have become parties to one or more of the instruments. VI. Resources and expenditures 49. The resources of the Terrorism Prevention Branch are derived from the United Nations regular budget, approved by the General Assembly, and from voluntary contributions by Member States. The regular budget includes an annual provision of approximately $900,000, mainly covering seven staff positions with small allocations for expert groups, consultants and travel. 50. The technical assistance activities of the Branch and many of the staff required for their delivery are financed from voluntary contributions from donor countries. Such support has been steadily increasing, reflecting growing confidence in effective programme delivery. As at 8 April 2005, the contributions and pledges shown in the table below had been made to the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Fund for the Branch’s technical assistance projects. Contributions made to the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Fund for technical assistance projects of the Terrorism Prevention Branch, as at 8 April 2005 Donor Total value paid (United States dollars) Austria 1 039 196 Canada 111 092 Denmark 181 737 France 493 883 Germany 419 090 Italy 840 782 Japan 30 000 Netherlands 4 720 Norway 442 478 Spain 156 576 Turkey 95 170 United Kingdom 478 000 United States of America 480 000 Total 4 772 724 173 5 177 1 177 3 121 32 111 34 78 32 126 22 74 41 66 37 83 32 73 61 52 83 0 50 100 150 As at the launch of the global project in October 2002 As at April 2005 Number of States parties to the universal conventions and protocols related to international terrorism International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999)a International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997)b Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection (1991)c Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (1988)d Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (1988)e Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (1988)f Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (1980)g International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (1979)h Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents (1973)i Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (1971)j Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (1970)k Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (1963)l Convention/protocol (date) States parties a General Assembly resolution 54/109, annex. b General Assembly resolution 52/164, annex. c S/22393, annex I; see Official Records of the Security Council, Forty-sixth Year, Supplement for January, February and March 1991. d United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1678, No. 29004. e Ibid. f Ibid., vol. 1589, No. 14118. g Ibid., vol. 1456, No. 24631. h Ibid., vol. 1316, No. 21931. i Ibid., vol. 1035, No. 15410. j Ibid., vol. 974, No. 14118. k Ibid., vol. 860, No. 12325. l Ibid., vol. 704, No. 10106. 51. In addition, in-kind contributions have been received from Argentina, Portugal, the Sudan and Turkey. 52. The Branch estimates that a minimum of between $4 million and $5 million is required in annual voluntary contributions in order to sustain the currently projected level of technical assistance activities. 53. During the period from October 2002 to December 2004, the Branch achieved a project implementation rate of close to 100 per cent in relation to funds made available, thus meeting the Branch’s goal of utilizing funds provided within a period of 12 months. This is accomplished by advance planning and initiation of project activities in anticipation of receipt of pledged voluntary contributions. VII. Conclusions and recommendations 54. The main focus of the activities conducted by the Terrorism Prevention Branch in the year under review was the provision of assistance to requesting countries for the ratification and legislative incorporation of the universal instruments related to terrorism. The Branch will continue to provide such assistance to States, upon request, as a matter of priority. With the expected adoption by the General Assembly of a further universal instrument, the draft convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism, the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice may wish to provide guidance to UNODC regarding future legislative assistance to promote this latest universal instrument against terrorism, once adopted. 55. Having reached a considerable number of countries through first-stage regional, subregional and bilateral assistance activities, the work of the Branch will in future focus increasingly on follow-up activities. The capacity to provide such in￾depth implementation assistance will be strengthened by increased representation at the country and subregional levels, in particular by: (a) placement of experts in the field; (b) pursuit by UNODC field offices of a comprehensive work programme, covering illicit drugs, crime and terrorism; and (c) an active search for partnerships. The Commission may wish to provide guidance as to further measures to be taken to enhance the follow-up activities of the Branch. 56. Upholding the rule of law, building viable criminal justice systems and strengthening international cooperation against terrorism are important components of a comprehensive response against international terrorism, at both the national and at the global level. UNODC has substantive in-house expertise and experience in providing assistance to Member States in these areas. The Commission may wish to consider the future direction of assistance in these areas by the Branch, in particular with regard to assistance in building the capacity of criminal justice systems to strengthen the rule of law and international cooperation arrangements. 57. In its resolution 59/153, the General Assembly expressed its appreciation to donor countries for their voluntary contributions to the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Fund, and invited all Member States to make voluntary contributions to the Fund in order to allow UNODC to provide technical assistance to requesting Member States. The growth of operational activities, ongoing requests for assistance and the continued support given to the ratification and, increasingly, implementation of the universal instruments related to terrorism have further stretched the limited resources available to the Terrorism Prevention Branch. Additional voluntary contributions and cost-sharing arrangements with assisted countries are essential. The Branch’s efforts to increase the volume of unearmarked contributions in relation to contributions for specific technical assistance projects have not yet been successful. However, this remains of particular importance if the Branch is to fulfil its mandates. Notes 1 United Nations publication, Sales No. E.04.V.7. 2 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1678, No. 29004. 3 Ibid. 4 Cape Verde (11-16 November 2003), the Central African Republic (9-14 February 2004), Guinea (3-7 May 2004), Chad (6-10 June 2004), the Republic of the Congo (5-9 July 2004), Togo (2-5 August 2004), Morocco (4-6 October 2004), Burkina Faso (25-28 November 2003), Rwanda (25-28 November 2003), Cameroon (25-28 November 2003) and Gabon (25-28 November 2003). 5 Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, Methodology for Assessing Compliance with the FATF 40 Recommendations and the FATF 8 Special Recommendations (27 February 2004). Annex Guidelines for technical assistance to combat terrorism The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, in promoting the implementation of the universal conventions and protocols related to terrorism and other related forms of crime and acting in areas within its competence and in coordination with the Counter-Terrorism Committee, should provide technical assistance in accordance with the following guidelines for technical assistance to combat terrorism: (a) Technical assistance to be provided to Member States, at their request, should be based on an integrated approach addressing the requirements and other provisions of Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001 and all conventions and protocols relevant to preventing and combating international terrorism; (b) Technical assistance should be provided in a comprehensive manner so as to increase synergies in the delivery of technical cooperation, reflecting both the links between terrorism and organized crime and the responsibility of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime for programmes to combat terrorism, drug trafficking, transnational organized crime, money-laundering, corruption and other related forms of criminal activity. In addition, such assistance should incorporate elements to ensure respect for human rights, pursuant to Security Council resolution 1456 (2003) of 20 January 2003; (c) Technical assistance in fighting terrorism should advocate an approach based on the rule of law, providing advice to requesting States on measures to be taken that strike a balance between legitimate security concerns and respect for the rule of law, including the principles of human rights; (d) To avoid duplication, technical assistance activities should be provided in close coordination with the activities of Member States, the Counter-Terrorism Committee and other international, regional and subregional organizations; (e) Regional and bilateral obligations and other applicable standards should also be considered in the provision of technical assistance; (f) Technical assistance should be responsive to the requests, assessed needs, circumstances and priorities of the requesting States; (g) Technical assistance to Member States to become parties to and implement the relevant conventions and protocols should include activities to build the capacity of the criminal justice system with regard to investigation, prosecution and international cooperation and to combat and prevent terrorism and related forms of crime; (h) Tools should be developed to help requesting Member States to assess their needs for technical assistance and to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the assistance provided; (i) Technical assistance should be provided in a manner that recognizes diverse legal systems and traditions while promoting the highest degree of international cooperation; (j) Technical assistance should be provided in a timely and cost-effective manner; (k) New initiatives in and methods for delivering technical assistance need to be explored, such as modern online delivery of assistance; encouraging Governments to include legislative representatives in technical assistance activities; increased use of partnerships with the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme network of institutes; and mentorships for criminal justice officials.

472576

United Nations A/C.1/56/PV.25 General Assembly Fifty-sixth session First Committee 25th meeting Wednesday, 17 July 2002, 10 a.m. New York Official Records This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the interpretation of speeches delivered in the other languages. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room C-178. Corrections will be issued after the end of the session in a consolidated corrigendum. 02-48263 (E) *0248263* Chairman: Mr. Erdös . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Hungary) In the absence of the Chairman, Mr. De Loecker (Belgium), Vice-Chairman, took the Chair. The meeting was called to order at 10.10 a.m. Election of the Chairman of the First Committee The Acting Chairman: This meeting has been convened for the election of the Chairman of the First Committee for the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly, as provided for in paragraph 3 of resolution 56/509, adopted by the Assembly at its 106th meeting, held on Monday, 8 July 2002. The election, pursuant to rule 103 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, shall be held by secret ballot unless the Committee decides otherwise in an election with only one candidate. It is my great honour and pleasure to nominate Ambassador Matia Mulumba Semakula Kiwanuka, Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United Nations, the candidate of the African Group of States, to the post of Chairman of the First Committee for the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly. Ambassador Semakula Kiwanuka has been the Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United Nations since 1996. He has led many of his country’s delegations to United Nations sessions and other international meetings. Prior to becoming Ambassador, he was Executive Director of Uganda’s management￾training institute, the Management Training and Advisory Centre, which specializes in management training and consultancy to government, the private sector and international organizations. He was educated at the University of Oxford, where he obtained a postgraduate diploma in development economics, specializing in the role of science and technology in development. He holds a Ph.D. in African history from the University of London and bachelor honours degrees in history from London and Makerere Universities. To reinforce his competence, he undertook post-doctoral specialization through research workshops in science and technology at the Universities of Cambridge, Sussex, Reading and Strathclyde in the United Kingdom. As Ambassador, he came to the United Nations with substantial knowledge and experience of the United Nations system. From 1985 to 1987, he worked with the United Nations Environment Programme; from 1988 to 1990, with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Uganda as Counterpart Chief Technical Adviser and Director of Planning and Project Coordinator for a UNDP project in capacity-building and institutional strengthening at Makarere University. Between 1990 and 1996, he worked extensively in AIDS education awareness programmes. He was also presidential adviser on reconstruction and rehabilitation from 1979 to 1980. He was responsible for aid coordination between the Government of Uganda and international agencies, especially the World Food Programme, the United States Agency for International Development and the European Economic Community. From 1965 to 1984, Ambassador Semakula Kiwanuka was active as a university lecturer, researcher and administrator. He published five books and more than 40 articles and reviews in the fields of history, science and technology, economic development, management training, and so forth. Since there are no other nominations, may I take it that, in accordance with rule 103 of the rules of procedure and established practice, the First Committee wishes to dispense with the secret ballot and to declare Ambassador Matia Mulumba Semakula Kiwanuka of Uganda elected Chairman of the First Committee for the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly by acclamation? It was so decided. The Acting Chairman: I would like, on behalf of the Committee and on my own account, to express our sincere and warm congratulations to Ambassador Semakula Kiwanuka on his election as Chairman of the First Committee for the fifty-seventh session. I am certain that, with his profound experience and knowledge, he will skilfully conduct the proceedings of the First Committee and will make a valuable contribution to the work of the Committee. The meeting rose at 10.15 a.m.

546963

UNITED NATIONS E Economic and Social Council Distr. GENERAL E/CN.4/2005/G/44 22 April 2005 Original: ENGLISH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Sixty-first session Agenda item 3 ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK OF THE SESSION Note verbale dated 20 April 2005 from the Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed to the Secretariat of the Commission on Human Rights The Permanent Mission of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office at Geneva and other International Organizations in Switzerland presents its compliments to the Secretariat of the Commission on Human Rights and wishes to refer to the several written statements circulated by Asian Legal Resource Centre under various agenda items. The Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka wishes to attach herewith the observations of the Government of Sri Lanka on the contents of the above-mentioned written statements. The Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka requests the Secretariat of the Commission on Human Rights to circulate the observations of the Government of Sri Lanka* as an official document of the Commission on Human Rights under agenda item3.

543866

United Nations A/BUR/59/SR.1 General Assembly Fifty-ninth session Official Records Distr.: General 19 October 2004 Original: English This record is subject to correction. Corrections should be sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned within one week of the date of publication to the Chief of the Official Records Editing Section, room DC2-750, 2 United Nations Plaza, and incorporated in a copy of the record. Corrections will be issued after the end of the session, in a separate corrigendum for each Committee. 04-51047 (E) *0451047* General Committee Summary record of the 1st meeting Held at Headquarters, New York, on Wednesday, 15 September 2004, at 10 a.m. Chairman: Mr. Ping (President of the General Assembly) ........................ (Gabon) Contents Organization of the fifty-ninth regular session of the General Assembly, adoption of the agenda and allocation of items The meeting was called to order at 10.20 a.m. Organization of the fifty-ninth regular session of the General Assembly, adoption of the agenda and allocation of items (A/BUR/59/1 and A/59/355) 1. The Chairman drew the Committee’s attention to the memorandum by the Secretary-General regarding the organization of the fifty-ninth regular session of the General Assembly, adoption of the agenda and allocation of items (A/BUR/59/1) and to a letter from the President of the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly addressed to the President of the fifty-ninth session of the Assembly (A/59/355), in which the President of the fifty-eighth session drew attention to section II of and annex I to the report of the Secretary-General on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly (A/58/864), which the Assembly had decided to submit for consideration at the fifty-ninth session. Memorandum by the Secretary-General (A/BUR/59/1) Section II: Organization of the session 2. The Committee took note of all the relevant information contained in section II of the memorandum. It decided to draw to the attention of the General Assembly all the necessary information and to recommend to the General Assembly that it should take action on all the proposals contained in that section. 3. The Committee also decided to recommend to the General Assembly that it should take note of the information contained in paragraph 17 of the memorandum. Section III: Observations on the organization of the work of the General Assembly 4. The Committee decided to bring to the attention of the General Assembly all the information contained in section III of the memorandum. Section IV: Adoption of the agenda 5. The Chairman informed the Committee that, in accordance with paragraph 2 (a) of the annex to General Assembly resolution 58/316, the draft agenda was now organized under headings corresponding to the priorities of the Organization, as contained in the medium-term plan for the period 2002-2005. The draft agenda contained in paragraph 54 of the memorandum was composed of all the items on the provisional agenda as contained in section II of the report of the Secretary-General on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly (A/58/864) and as submitted by the President of the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly in document A/59/355, as well as items 17 (j), 159, 160 and 161. It also contained five new items, namely, items 153, 154, 159, 160 and 161. 6. The Committee decided to take note of the information contained in paragraphs 48 to 53 of the memorandum. 7. The Chairman said that the representative of Egypt had asked to participate in the discussion. Rule 43 of the rules of procedure did not apply. He took it that the Committee wished to accede to that request. 8. It was so decided. 9. At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. Elnaggar (Egypt) took a place at the Committee table. 10. Mr. Elnaggar (Egypt) asked whether the Committee intended to discuss the new format of the draft agenda at the current meeting or at a later date in the context of the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly. In accordance with section B, paragraph 2 (c) of the annex to General Assembly resolution 58/316, the Committee should consult with Member States before making recommendations to the fifty-ninth session of the General Assembly concerning the placement of agenda items under the new headings but, to his knowledge, no such consultations had taken place. 11. Ms. Anguiano Rodríguez (Mexico) endorsed the remarks made by the representative of Egypt. 12. Mr. Bouheddou (Algeria) endorsed the remarks made by the representative of Egypt. He had been under the impression that the restructuring of the agenda was still under discussion and took the view that the Committee should further consider the issue in the context of its forthcoming examination of the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly. 13. Mr. Bennouna (Morocco), supported by Mr. Balarezo (Peru), said that the draft agenda contained in the Secretary-General’s memorandum was merely a proposal and should be the subject of further discussions. Nevertheless, he suggested that any specific proposals pertaining to the inclusion of items should be made immediately, since that particular issue could not be deferred. 14. It was so decided. 15. Mr. Elnaggar (Egypt) said that he was more than willing to take part in discussions on the inclusion of agenda items. However, in the absence of instructions from Cairo, he would be unable to support any proposals made until constructive consultations open to all Member States had taken place. 16. Mr. Elnaggar (Egypt) withdrew. Inclusion of items Heading A (Maintenance of international peace and security) Item 28 (Question of the Comorian island of Mayotte) 17. The Committee decided to postpone its consideration of the inclusion of item 28 to a later date. Item 84 (Question of the Malagasy islands of Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Europa and Bassas de India) 18. Mr. Oubida (Burkina Faso), supported by Mr. Cools (Belgium), said that, following consultations with the representatives of France and Madagascar and without prejudice to the positions of those two countries, his delegation wished to propose that the Committee should recommend to the General Assembly, that consideration of item 84 should be deferred to the sixtieth session of the General Assembly. 19. It was so decided. 20. The Committee decided to recommend to the General Assembly the inclusion of the items listed under heading A, taking into account the decisions taken in respect of items 28 and 84. Heading B (Promotion of sustained economic growth and sustainable development in accordance with the resolutions of the General Assembly and recent United Nations conferences) 21. The Committee decided to recommend to the General Assembly the inclusion of the items listed under heading B. Heading C (Development of Africa) 22. The Committee decided to recommend to the General Assembly the inclusion of the items listed under heading C. Heading D (Promotion of human rights) 23. The Committee decided to recommend to the General Assembly the inclusion of the items listed under heading D. Heading E (Effective coordination of humanitarian assistance efforts) 24. The Committee decided to recommend to the General Assembly the inclusion of the items listed under heading E. Heading F (Promotion of justice and international law) 25. The Chairman said that the representative of Costa Rica had asked to participate in the discussion. Rule 43 of the rules of procedure did not apply. He took it that the Committee wished to accede to that request. 26. It was so decided. 27. At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. Díaz Paniagua (Costa Rica) took a place at the Committee table. 28. Mr. Díaz Paniagua (Costa Rica) proposed that item 152 (International convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings) should be included under heading F rather than under heading I. 29. It was so decided. 30. Mr. Díaz Paniagua (Costa Rica) withdrew. 31. The Committee decided to recommend to the General Assembly the inclusion of the items listed under heading F, taking into account the decision taken in respect of item 152. Heading G (Disarmament) 32. The Committee decided to recommend to the General Assembly the inclusion of the items listed under heading G. Heading H (Drug control, crime prevention and combating international terrorism in all its forms and manifestations) 33. The Committee decided to recommend to the General Assembly the inclusion of the items listed under heading H Heading I (Organizational, administrative and other matters) Item 153 (Observer status for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in the General Assembly) 34. Mr. Wang Guangya (China), speaking on behalf of the States members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), namely, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, said that SCO had been established in Shanghai on 15 June 2001. It was an intergovernmental body dedicated to regional development and the maintenance of peace and security and its activities fully accorded with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. It stood ready to engage in constructive dialogue with the United Nations on issues of mutual interest and, in that connection, the granting of observer status would enable it to pursue closer cooperation with the Organization. He drew attention to document A/59/141, in which members of the Committee could find more detailed information about SCO and its work. 35. Mr. Vohidov (Uzbekistan) said that his delegation supported the inclusion in the agenda of item 153. Granting the SCO observer status would ensure its effective contribution to security and stability, not only in its territorial area, but throughout the world. Strengthening cooperation between the Organization and regional organizations would help counteract current threats and challenges in the area of security, as well as in the areas of stability and development. He recalled that in the declaration issued following their summit meeting in Tashkent, held in June 2004, the Heads of State of the members of SCO had stressed their readiness to participate in the construction of a new security architecture, as well as the importance of their interaction with the United Nations. 36. Mr. Kazykhanov (Kazakhstan) said that his delegation fully supported the statements made by the representatives of China and Uzbekistan. Kazakhstan attached great importance to the strengthening of ties between the United Nations and SCO, which was open to cooperation with other countries and international organizations in the political, commercial, economic, humanitarian and scientific spheres, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law. 37. The Chairman said that the representatives of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan had asked to participate in the discussion of item 153 in accordance with rule 43 of the rules of procedure. 38. At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. Moldogaziev (Kyrgyzstan) and Mr. Nazarov (Tajikistan) took places at the Committee table. 39. Mr. Nazarov (Tajikistan) said that his delegation also supported the proposal to include item 153 in the agenda. Over the years, the United Nations had stepped up its efforts to forge partnerships with regional organizations in order to achieve the common objectives of peace, security and development. Granting observer status to SCO would not only expand the Organization’s geographical area of cooperation but also enhance efforts for the maintenance of international peace and security. 40. Mr. Moldogaziev (Kyrgyzstan), expressing support for the proposal of the representative of China, noted that the main purposes of SCO were to strengthen mutual trust and friendship among member States and to develop their effective cooperation in the political, economic, commercial and other spheres. In the field of security, SCO focused on combating terrorism, separatism and extremism, and had recently established a permanent secretariat and a regional anti￾terrorist structure. 41. Mr. Moldogaziev (Kyrgyzstan) and Mr. Nazarov (Tajikistan) withdrew. 42. Mr. Konuzin (Russian Federation) said that his delegation supported China’s proposal. The request for observer status for SCO was motivated by the desire to establish close and effective ties of cooperation with the United Nations. Granting the request would allow for a genuine strengthening of the interaction of the United Nations with regional organizations and enhance the opportunities for maintaining international peace and security. 43. The Committee decided to recommend that the General Assembly should include item 153 under Heading I of the agenda of the fifty-ninth session. Item 154 (Observer status for the Southern African development community in the General Assembly) 44. The Chairman said that the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania had asked to participate in the discussion of item 154 in accordance with rule 43 of the rules of procedure. 45. At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. Mahiga (United Republic of Tanzania) took a place at the Committee table. 46. Mr. Mahiga (United Republic of Tanzania), speaking on behalf of Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe, introduced their request for the inclusion of item 154 in the agenda of the General Assembly. The programme of action of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) was compatible with that of the United Nations in the areas of peace and security, democracy, gender, science and technology and regional integration in general. If the SADC were to be granted observer status, the two institutions would be able to share information at the regional level on the implementation of various United Nations programmes. Moreover, the SADC subregional arrangements for cooperation constituted regional building blocks for international peace and security. Observer status in the General Assembly would enhance the partnership between the two organizations. 47. Mr. Mahiga (United Republic of Tanzania) withdrew. 48. The Committee decided to recommend that the General Assembly should include item 154 under Heading I of the agenda of the fifty-ninth session. Item 159 (Question of the representation of the twenty￾three million people of Taiwan in the United Nations) 49. The Chairman said that the inclusion of item 159 had been requested in document A/59/194. The representative of the Gambia had asked to address the Committee on the matter under rule 43 of the rules of procedure. 50. At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. Grey￾Johnson (Gambia) took a place at the Committee table. 51. Mr. Grey-Johnson (Gambia), speaking on behalf of Belize, Burkina Faso, Chad, Grenada, Malawi, the Marshall Islands, Nicaragua, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Swaziland and Tuvalu, said that the request for the inclusion of item 159 in the agenda of the fifty-ninth session had been submitted. Pursuant to rule 14 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly in a letter circulated in document A/59/194, along with an explanatory memorandum (annex I) and a draft resolution (annex II). The Committee faced yet another opportunity to revisit the burning question of the representation of the 23 million people of Taiwan, whose exclusion from the United Nations represented a moral and political indictment of all Member States. General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) did not state that the People’s Republic of China represented China at the United Nations, or that Taiwan could not be admitted into the United Nations, where the Taiwanese people currently had no representation. 52. In an era of threats and new challenges to the international system, to leave out any nation was foolhardy and counterproductive, especially at a time when States were eager to tighten cooperation in all areas and strengthen global governance. The fact that Taiwan was a sovereign nation could not be disputed. All nations of the world, including Taiwan’s main detractor, conducted trade and other exchanges with Taiwan as a sovereign entity. Taiwan continued to make invaluable contributions to the global economy, and was emerging as a potentially strong power broker in East Asia, where its record as a functioning democracy and a champion of human rights stood out among those of its peers. Taiwan’s ranking as the world’s 17th-largest economy was a remarkable feat, in view of the political isolation it had been forced to endure, and showed that Taiwan was more than ready to play its full part in global affairs. Taiwan had also shown its readiness to assume humanitarian responsibilities. 53. It was particularly impressive that Taiwan continued to be committed to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, perceiving itself as a responsible and integral member of the international community. No unilateral policy on Taiwan’s sovereignty could be implemented through the threat or use of force, which were illegal under the Charter. Events in the Taiwan Straits should elicit a response from the United Nations. Cross-strait talks aimed at achieving lasting peace and stability remained the legitimate goal of the peace-loving people of Taiwan and should also be the goal of every peace￾loving neighbour in that region and beyond. The United Nations could not ignore the legitimate aspirations of the people of Taiwan and expect to achieve the purposes of the Organization. The Committee had the chance to set in motion a process that should lead to the rectification of one of history’s great injustices — the exclusion of Taiwan from the United Nations. 54. Mr. Grey-Johnson (Gambia) withdrew. 55. The Chairman said that a number of non￾member sponsors had asked to participate in the discussion of item 159, in accordance with rule 43 of the rules of procedure. In addition, there were a number of non-member non-sponsors who had asked to participate. He took it that the Committee agreed to waive rule 43 of the rules of procedure. 56. It was so decided. 57. At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. Mayoral (Argentina), Mr. Taranda (Belarus), Mr. Leslie (Belize), Mr. Nkingiye (Burundi), Mr. Sambath (Cambodia), Mr. Laotegguelnodji (Chad), Mr. López Clemente (Cuba), Mr. Mavroyiannis (Cyprus), Mr. Kim Chang Guk (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), Mr. Ileka (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Mr. Elnagger (Egypt), Mr. Avomo (Equatorial Guinea), Ms. Talbot (Guyana), Mr. Flores Callejas (Honduras), Mr. Neil (Jamaica), Mr. Vixay (Lao People’s Democratic Republic), Mr Chiphamba (Malawi), Mr. Capelle (Marshall Islands), Mr. Gal (Mongolia), Mr. Chidumo (Mozambique), Mr. Wali (Nigeria), Mr. S. Beck (Palau), Mr. Buffa (Paraguay), Mr. Richardson (Saint Kitts and Nevis), Mr. Ferreira (Sao Tome and Principe), Mr. Badji (Senegal), Mr. Davies (Sierra Leone), Mr. C. Beck (Solomon Islands), Mr. Ferrari (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), Mr. Oyarzun (Spain), Mr. Limon (Suriname), Mr. Nhleko (Swaziland), Mr. Nazarov (Tajikistan), Mr. Koubaa (Tunisia), Ms. Ataeva (Turkmenistan), Mr. Taupo (Tuvalu), Mr. Wagaba (Uganda), and Mr. Nuñez de Odreman (Venezuela) took places at the Committee table. 58. Mr. Wang Guangya (China) said that his delegation was strongly opposed to the inclusion of item 159 in the agenda of the fifty-ninth session. A small number of countries had once again raised the issue, with the aim of crating “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan” in the Organization. That intention was clearly contrary to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI), as well as a brazen challenge to the “one-China” principle widely recognized by the international community. His Government and the Chinese people strongly opposed that gross encroachment on China’s internal affairs. 59. Taiwan had been an inseparable part of China’s territory since ancient times. Both the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation had unequivocally reaffirmed China’s sovereignty over Taiwan as a matter of international law. There was but one China in the world, and his Government was the sole legal Government representing the whole of China. A total of 160 countries had diplomatic relations with China. All recognized the “one-China” principle and all recognized that Taiwan was a part of China. Moreover, General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) recognized that the representatives of his Government were the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations. Since Taiwan was a part of China, China’s representation at the United Nations naturally included Taiwan. The so-called issue of “Taiwan’s representation in the United Nations” therefore did not exist. Since 1993, the Committee had always refused to recommend the inclusion of that so-called issue in the agenda of the General Assembly, thereby demonstrating the determination of the vast majority of Member States to uphold the Charter of the United Nations. 60. The question of Taiwan was a purely internal matter for China. His Government’s position on the question was firm and clear. Adherence to the “one￾China” principle was the basis for the development of cross-Strait relations and the realization of peaceful reunification. China was resolutely determined and was fully capable of blocking any attempt to separate Taiwan from China. Respect for State sovereignty and territorial integrity and non-interference in countries’ internal affairs were important principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and China appreciated the just position adopted by the vast majority of Member States. 61. Mr. Laotegguelnodji (Chad) said that his delegation supported the statement of the representative of the Gambia. The Republic of China on Taiwan had been one of the founding members of the United Nations. General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had never established the jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China over the Republic of China on Taiwan. Some 30 Member States had established diplomatic relations with Taiwan and over 100 other Member States, had economic, commercial and cultural ties with Taiwan. The People’s Republic of China itself benefited from growing investments by Taiwan, and both countries had been admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2002. It was therefore his hope that the fifty-ninth session of the General Assembly would respond to the legitimate request that Taiwan should once again become a full member of the Organization. 62. Mr. Kim Chang Guk (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that Taiwan was an inseparable part of the People’s Republic of China, as confirmed in General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI). History had shown that the artificial division of nations caused suffering to the people and political instability. The Taiwan issue was an internal matter for China to resolve, and the United Nations should not be used to legalize “two Chinas”. His delegation was therefore opposed to the inclusion of item 159 in the agenda. 63. Mr. Kazykhanov (Kazakhstan) said that his delegation fully supported the Government of the People’s Republic of China in its determination to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and was therefore opposed to the inclusion of item 159. The Government of the People’s Republic of China was the sole legitimate representative of the people of China and Taiwan was an inseparable part of China’s territory. The adoption of General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had already resolved the issue, in political, legal and procedural terms. 64. Mr. Elnaggar (Egypt) said that his Government had been first among Arab, African and Middle Eastern States to recognize the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate representative of the Chinese people. Taiwan was an inseparable part of China. He expressed the hope that one day the Chinese people would be united under the Government of the People’s Republic of China. General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had definitively resolved the issue of representation of the Chinese people at the United Nations. Accordingly, his delegation did not accept the inclusion of the item on the agenda. 65. Mr. C. Beck (Solomon Islands) said that the Republic of China on Taiwan had met all the requirements to qualify as a sovereign State under the Charter and international law. Such global threats as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and HIV/AIDS underscored the need for the involvement and close cooperation of all States. Taiwan had made considerable economic and political progress and should serve as a model from which to learn. Its reinstatement as a Member State would help to take the multilateral process to a new level and contribute to the revitalization of the Organization. His delegation was therefore in favour of including the item in the agenda. 66. Mr. Vohidov (Uzbekistan) said that his delegation firmly believed that the Government of the People’s Republic of China was the sole legitimate representative of the Chinese people and fully supported all the provisions of General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI). He therefore rejected the idea of including the item on the agenda. 67. Mr. Nhleko (Swaziland) said that the United Nations could not afford to fail the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan in their desire to be represented in the affairs of the Organization. The people of Taiwan believed in their inalienable right to determine their future, free from coercion, and in their right to membership in the United Nations. They had demonstrated a wish to be responsible members of the international community and cooperate with other nations in providing assistance and supporting sustainable development. Including the item in the agenda was in no way a frivolous attempt to create two Chinas or interfere in the internal affairs of the People’s Republic of China. Since 1949, the two sides on the Taiwan Straits had been governed as separate entities. It was in the interest of the People’s Republic of China to accept Taiwan as a friendly neighbour and move towards peaceful coexistence. 68. Mr. S. Beck (Palau) said that Taiwan, a modern democracy with a powerful economy, was too important to be marginalized and excluded from decision-making in the international community. Its involvement in such areas of international cooperation as health protection and air safety was crucial. The United Nations could no longer ignore its presence or deny it representation. In keeping with the Charter, Member States should not deny the people of Taiwan the same right to self-determination that had been afforded his own country and had led to its independence. 69. Mr. Chidumo (Mozambique) said that there was only one China and Taiwan had been part of the People’s Republic of China since antiquity. Both the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation had affirmed China’s sovereignty over Taiwan under international law. General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI), adopted by an overwhelming majority, had resolved the issue of China’s representation in the United Nations in political, legal and procedural terms. The annual attempts to challenge the validity of resolution 2758 (XXVI) were an attack on the credibility of the United Nations. He was opposed to inclusion of the item. 70. Ms. Ferrari (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) said that her delegation supported the return of Taiwan to its rightful place as a Member of the Organization. It was encouraging that relatively small and, some would say, unimportant States could bring the issue of Taiwan’s lack of representation to the attention of the international community. The repeated mention of “one China” and General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) gave the false impression that the matter had been resolved. If that were the case, however, she failed to understand why weapons had been deployed on one side of the Taiwan Strait and pointed in one direction. Her Government maintained excellent relations with the People’s Republic of China and wished to play an active role to promote dialogue and cooperation between the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan so that the critical situation could be resolved in the interest of peace and security 71. Mr. Ferreira (Sao Tome and Principe) said that General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had not resolved the issue of representation of the people of Taiwan at the United Nations. The denial of the right to international representation contravened the principle of universality under the Charter. The principle of one China only created tensions and should not be applied against the will of the people of Taiwan. His delegation suggested that the United Nations should organize a referendum of the people of Taiwan on whether they supported a policy of one China, two systems. The Republic of China on Taiwan should be brought into the Organization given that it met all the requirements for membership. 72. Mr. Castellon (Nicaragua) said that the principle of universality was the cornerstone of the international system established by the Charter of the United Nations, under Article 4 of which membership in the United Nations was open to all peace-loving States. Taiwan was a State that met all the requirements under international law, as it was neither a colony nor a province or territory of another State. The 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation had been issued without the participation of representatives of Taiwan or of the People’s Republic of China, and had been aimed at achieving peaceful coexistence between the hegemonistic Powers of that era. The 23 million people of Taiwan were requesting the right to representation in the United Nations under the principle of universality enshrined in the Charter. General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had provided for the admission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations, but had not addressed the question of the representation of Taiwan, and had been improperly used to justify its exclusion. Therefore, his delegation supported the inclusion of the item in the agenda of the fifty-ninth session. 73. Mr. Vixay (Lao People’s Democratic Republic) reiterated his delegation’s well-known position on the matter. There was only one China, of which Taiwan was an inseparable part, and the Government of the People’s Republic of China was the only legitimate Government representing China and its people. As General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had settled the question, his delegation opposed the inclusion of the item. 74. Mr. Buffa (Paraguay) said that his Government’s position on the question of the representation of the 23 million people of Taiwan in the United Nations was contained in a letter to the Secretary-General which had been circulated as document A/59/322. His Government maintained full diplomatic, commercial and cultural relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan) and respected the progress it had made, especially in the economic and commercial sphere. In view of the principle of universality enshrined in the Charter, it believed that the international community must consider the proposal in question, as it would for any other State which met the requirements laid down in the Charter. In line with that policy, Paraguay had supported the admission to WTO of both the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan). Therefore, it supported the inclusion of the item. 75. Mr. Badji (Senegal) said that support for the inclusion of the item in the agenda was a genuine act of faith rooted in dedication to the principles of solidarity, tolerance and justice. The sovereignty of Taiwan should not be called into question and its isolation was unacceptable. The Republic of China on Taiwan was a founding Member of the United Nations; it enjoyed solid State institutions; played an active role in promoting fraternal relations in the international community; and was actively engaged in development programmes. His delegation supported all peaceful efforts to advance the reunification process, but that must be achieved only with the consent of all people concerned. 76. Mr. Oyarzun (Spain) said that inclusion of the question of Taiwan on the agenda was not timely. 77. Mr. Neil (Jamaica) said that Member States should avoid actions that undermined the principles of territorial integrity, sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States. General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had resolved the issue of the representation of China at the United Nations and made clear that the People’s Republic of China was the sole legitimate and recognized representative of the people of China. His Government was therefore opposed to the inclusion of the item in the agenda. 78. Mr. Taupo (Tuvalu) said that the humble and reasonable request to include the item in the agenda reflected the principle of universality and the need for the international community to cooperate to meet global challenges. Taiwan had demonstrated its good will on the international scene over such issues as health. It was a model for the international community of a State striving to maintain its existence as a democracy. 79. Mr. Tun (Myanmar) said that there was only one China, which was represented by the People’s Republic of China, and Taiwan was an integral part of it. Bearing in mind the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States, his delegation viewed the item as a flagrant violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter. General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had settled the question of representation. His delegation therefore fully supported the position of the People’s Republic of China and opposed the inclusion of the item. 80. Mr. Chimphamba (Malawi) said that Taiwan’s exclusion from the United Nations called into question the principle of universality and violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had never designated Taiwan as part of the People’s Republic of China. His Government would respect any peaceful agreement between the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan based on justice, fairness and mutual respect. However, as a democracy with 23 million people and a vibrant economy, Taiwan should be able to participate in the work of the United Nations and its agencies. The General Assembly should therefore give urgent consideration to the issue of Taiwan’s restoration to the Organization’s membership. 81. Mr. López Clemente (Cuba) said the proposal to include item 159 was inconsistent with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, including resolution 2758 (XXVI), which provided a political, legal and procedural solution that was both just and definitive. Thirty-three years earlier, the representatives of Taiwan had been expelled from the United Nations and all its associated organizations. His Government’s position remained unchanged. There was only one China, and the letter and spirit of General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) must be upheld. His delegation therefore opposed the inclusion of the item. 82. Mr. Sambath (Cambodia) said that the question of Taiwan was a purely internal matter that must be dealt with by the people of China themselves through peaceful means. His Government therefore firmly supported a “one-China” policy and opposed any effort to review General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) and to include the item in the agenda. 83. Mr. Capelle (Marshall Islands) said that his Government favoured the inclusion of item 159 and reiterated its full support for the ongoing quest of the people of Taiwan to participate in the United Nations. Taiwan was a peace-loving, representative, democratic, sovereign State, committed to human rights and prepared to carry out its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, and was an active, constructive member of the international community. It had achieved internationally recognized progress in both economic and social development and had long been willing to share its prosperity through various forms of international development assistance and humanitarian aid. The democratically elected Government of Taiwan was the sole legitimate representative of the people of Taiwan at the United Nations. His Government therefore urged all Member States to put aside their own political interests and support the inclusion of the item for the sake of the people of Taiwan. 84. Mr. Mayoral (Argentina) said that his Government’s position was that item 153 should not be included in the agenda for the fifty-ninth session, as General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had decided the question in 1971, based on the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. Argentina had full relations with the People’s Republic of China, of which Taiwan was an inalienable part. It therefore rejected all attempts by Taiwan to join the United Nations as a separate entity. 85. Mr. Arrouchi (Morocco) said that his delegation also agreed that General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had settled the matter on the political, legal and procedural levels. No new information had been received that justified reopening the discussion; his delegation therefore opposed inclusion of the item. 86. Mr. Flores Callejas (Honduras) said that the spread of such pandemic diseases as HIV/AIDS, SARS and malaria called for the cooperation and involvement of humanity as a whole to combat them effectively. The recent expansion in the membership of the WTO, which had enabled both the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan to participate in its work, gave reason to hope for even broader cooperation between those two nations. In that spirit, his delegation hoped that it would be possible to continue the consideration of the matter in question. 87. Ms. Ataeva (Turkmenistan) said that, in the view of her delegation, General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had settled the question of the representation of China in the United Nations. Therefore, the Committee should decide not to recommend inclusion of the item in the agenda. 88. Mr. Aliyev (Azerbaijan) said that his delegation also supported the “one-China” policy. In accordance with the principle of territorial integrity, his Government viewed the question of Taiwan as an internal matter to be resolved within the People’s Republic of China, and therefore, opposed inclusion of the item in the agenda. 89. Mr. Nkingiye (Burundi) said that his Government recognized one China, the People’s Republic of China, of which Taiwan was an integral part; therefore, it opposed inclusion of the item. 90. Mr. Koubaa (Tunisia) said that in the view of his delegation, the question of the representation of China had been settled by the adoption of General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI). 91. Mr. Mekdad (Syrian Arab Republic) said that inclusion of the item in the agenda would be in violation of the Charter, and any attempt to question the existence of one China would violate the territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of China. 92. Mr. Wali (Nigeria) said that to support the representation of Taiwan in the United Nations would be to recognize it as a sovereign State, in violation of General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI). The issue should be resolved on the basis of Articles 3 and 4 of the Charter. Therefore, his delegation did not support inclusion of the item. 93. Mr. Oubida (Burkina Faso) called on the international community to reconsider the situation of Taiwan. The decision taken by the General Assembly in 1971 was no longer a valid argument against its representation, given the progress it had made and the fact that it met all the conditions for membership in the Organization. Its admission to WTO in 2002 was a further indication that the matter should be given due consideration. Therefore, his delegation supported inclusion of the item in the agenda of the fifty-ninth session. 94. Mr. Nazarov (Tajikistan) said that China’s sovereignty had already been determined in General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI): there was only one China and Taiwan was a part of it. Therefore, his delegation opposed inclusion of the item. 95. Mr. Wagaba (Uganda) said that the matter had already been considered in the General Assembly. His Government upheld a “one-China” policy; it therefore opposed inclusion of the item. 96. Mr. Musambachime (Zambia) said that his delegation reaffirmed its opposition to the inclusion of the item, but recalled that, at the fifty-eighth session, the Committee had rejected the recommendation for inclusion of the item but had urged dialogue on the matter. 97. Mr. Gal (Mongolia) said that it was the official position of his Government that General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had resolved the question of the representation of China in the United Nations. His delegation saw no compelling reason to contradict a General Assembly decision by including the item in the agenda. 98. Mr. Limon (Suriname) said that, based on the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity, the People’s Republic of China was the sole legitimate representative of China. His Government continued to support a one China policy; it therefore opposed inclusion of the item in the agenda. 99. Mr. Leslie (Belize) said that in the view of his delegation, the matter of the representation of China had not been resolved by General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI). A delicate balance must be struck between the principles of universality and sovereignty on the one hand and the fundamental human rights of the 23 million people of Taiwan on the other. His delegation, therefore, supported the representation of Taiwan in the United Nations and the inclusion of the item in the agenda. 100. Mr. Davies (Sierra Leone) said that his delegation maintained its position that Taiwan had been an integral part of China since ancient times. International legal instruments could not be ignored, and therefore it opposed any attempt to divide China. 101. Mr. Avomo (Equatorial Guinea) said that it was the position of his Government that there was no justification for consideration of the item since the matter of the representation of China had been resolved by General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI). 102. Ms. Anguiano Rodríguez (Mexico) said that, because of its support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China as expressed in General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI), her delegation opposed inclusion of the item. 103. Mr. Talbot (Guyana) said that, in accordance with his Government’s one-China policy, Taiwan was an integral part of China. Therefore, his delegation opposed inclusion of the item. 104. Mr. Mavroyiannis (Cyprus) said that his country had suffered division, and he would not want to see the same fate befall the people of China. Therefore, it supported a one-China policy, in accordance with the Charter, and opposed inclusion of the item. 105. Mr. Ileka (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said that his Government recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate Government of China, and thus opposed the attempt to include the item in the agenda. 106. Mr. Benmehidi (Algeria) said that Algeria had full relations with the People’s Republic of China and considered that the question of its representation had been resolved in General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI). It therefore opposed the inclusion of the item. 107. Mr. Taranda (Belarus) said that his delegation supported the territorial integrity of China as described in General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI), and therefore did not support inclusion of the item. 108. Mr. Richardson (Saint Kitts and Nevis) said that the question before the Committee had been discussed many times in the past without being resolved. It was clear to his delegation that Taiwan did not see itself as part of China, and several other countries agreed with that view. The international community owed it to the people of Taiwan to listen to them. His delegation therefore supported inclusion of the item in the agenda. 109. Ms. Nuñez de Odreman (Venezuela) said that it was the view of her delegation that the item should not be included in the agenda because it violated the principle of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States. The meeting rose at 1 p.m.

510124

United Nations S/2003/1172 Security Council Distr.: General 15 December 2003 Original: English 03-65775 (E) 020104 311203 *0365775* Letter dated 4 December 2003 from the Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001) concerning counter-terrorism addressed to the President of the Security Council I write with reference to my letter of 6 June 2003 (S/2003/627). The Counter-Terrorism Committee has received the attached third report from Jordan submitted pursuant to paragraph 6 of resolution 1373 (2001) (see annex). I would be grateful if you could arrange for the present letter and its annex to be circulated as a document of the Security Council. (Signed) Inocencio F. Arias Chairman Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001) concerning counter-terrorism Annex Letter dated 3 December 2003 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan to theUnited Nations addressed to the Chairman of the Counter-Terrorism Committee With regard to your letter dated 30 May 2003, I have the honour to forward to you Jordan’s second supplementary report pursuant to paragraph 6 of Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) (see enclosure). I hope that the said report will answer the Committee’s comments/questions. (Signed) Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein Ambassador Permanent Representative Enclosure [Original: Arabic] Second supplementary report of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan submitted to the Counter-Terrorism Committee pursuant to paragraph 6 of Security Council resolution 1373 (2001)* Jordan’s second supplementary report to the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001) (Counter-Terrorism Committee) is of special importance, coming as it does in the wake of the terrorist attack carried out against the headquarters of the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad on 14 August 2003, which took with it dozens of innocent victims. That event, however, and the terrorist attacks committed against Jordan and its nationals during the past few years will only increase Jordan’s determination to combat the plague of terrorism. The present report contains a further dimension, namely Jordan’s ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. Jordan will continue its national counter-terrorist efforts at the various levels in accordance with Security Council resolution 1373 (2001). The following report was prepared in response to questions contained in the Committee’s note S/AC.40/2003/MS/OC of 30 May 2003. 1.2. Progress report on the draft act to combat money-laundering and, in particular, its provisions concerning funds emanating from terrorist activities or funds that may be used to finance terrorism The Government of Jordan accords high priority to this draft. The Bureau of Legislation of the Office of the Prime Minister, which is charged with the study of laws, has completed the study of this draft, now in the final stages preparatory to its submission to Parliament for discussion and adoption. Regarding legal provisions, article 2 of the draft defines illegal funds as follows: “Illegal funds: any funds arising directly or indirectly from any criminal act within the meaning of article 3 of the present Act”. Article 3 of the draft contains the following provisions: For the purposes of the present Act, funds shall be deemed illegal if they emanate from any of the following offences: (a) Traffic in narcotic drugs; (b) Illicit traffic in arms and ammunition; (c) Terrorism in violation of the Penal Code; (d) Kidnapping of persons or holding of them hostage for the purpose of extortion, in violation of the law; (e) Offences committed in contravention of the provisions of the Economic Offences Code; (f) Any other offences considered under the laws concerning them as involving money-laundering; * Any attachments are on file with the Secretariat and are available for consultation. (g) Any criminal act involving money-laundering that is criminally sanctioned under the legislation in force in the Kingdom. Article 4 of the draft provides as follows: Any and all of the following acts shall be considered as money-laundering: (a) Concealing the true source or whereabouts of illegal funds or camouflaging such funds by altering or converting them; (b) Concealing the ownership of illegal funds or providing misleading information regarding such ownership; (c) Owning or possessing illegal funds or using or investing such funds in order to purchase movable or immovable property or to carry out financial transactions, in the awareness that they are illegal funds. Regarding the powers of the Attorney-General, article 9 (b) provides as follows: (b) The Attorney-General may exercise the following powers in the performance of his duties: 1. Observation of funds suspected of being illegal and keeping track of such funds by all necessary means for that purpose; 2. Preventive attachment of illegal funds and issuance of any and all orders to prevent the disposal thereof; 3. Stopping of the completion or performance of any contract, transaction or work that may involve or be connected with illegal funds; 4. Preservation, in accordance with the requirements of the investigating authority, of any documents connected with illegal funds. The penalties imposable pursuant to the draft act are provided for in article 10, as follows: (a) Without prejudice to any severer penalty stipulated in any other legislation, the offence of money-laundering shall be punishable by imprisonment for not less than one year and not more than three years, a fine of up to 1 million dinars or both and the funds in question shall be confiscated. The penalty shall be doubled in case of a repeated offence; (b) Complicity or intervention in or abetting of crimes of money-laundering shall be subject to the same penalty as the principal offence; (c) In cases other than those provided for in paragraph (a) of this article, any violation of the provisions of this act shall be punishable by at least six months’ imprisonment or a penalty of not less than ten thousand dinars. 1.3. The provision or collection of funds in any manner with the intention that they should be used to carry out terrorist acts The provisions of the penal laws themselves cover the related questions raised by the Committee, inasmuch as the competent courts do not face any difficulties in this regard. Nonetheless, the Government’s ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism through the promulgation of Provisional Law No. 83 of 2003 (Law ratifying the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism) fully satisfy the Committee’s questions. Indeed, under the ratification law, the Convention and all its provisions became part of Jordan’s national law; consequently, the courts are bound to apply its provisions on an equal basis with other existing legislation. 1.4. Legal provisions in force which regulate the operation of alternative money transfer agencies or services There are no legal provisions on alternative money transfer services and no such agencies are licensed by the Central Bank. However, such activities will come under the legal regulations for combating money-laundering once the act becomes law. 1.5. Legal provisions relating to lawyers, accountants and notaries who engage in brokering activities It must be pointed out to the Committee that professions such as accounting and the practice of law are regulated in Jordan by special laws, such as the Bar Association Act and the Organization of the Accounting Profession Act, under which lawyers and accountants are prohibited from engaging in brokering activities or entering into commercial transactions on pain of punishment, withdrawal of their professional licence, the imposition of fines and imprisonment for various terms. The brokerage sector, on the other hand, is governed by a law specific to it, namely the Commercial Agents and Intermediaries Act (Act No. 28 of 2001). 1.6. The competent body within the Central Bank to which suspicious transactions are to be reported The Bank Supervision Department within the Central Bank is the body to which banks are required to report suspicious transactions. In addition, as soon as the money-laundering act is promulgated, another, unrelated, unit is to be established to deal with suspicious financial transactions involving money￾laundering. 1.7. The directive of the Governor of the Central Bank of Jordan concerning the freezing of funds suspected of being linked to terrorism is based, as mentioned previously, on powers laid down in the Banking Code. Consequently, the Central Bank has the power to stop, for a period of 30 days, the execution of any banking operation or the receipt or payment of any sum of money that is or may be connected with terrorist acts. It may also notify the judicial authorities to undertake an investigation with a view to the freezing of the funds, in which case, as previously mentioned, the Attorney-General has the power to effect the attachment under the Penal Code (article 147). 1.8. In answer to the Committee’s question whether the Government of Jordan can freeze the assets of persons if there is reasonable cause to suspect that they are connected with terrorism or terrorist groups, the Government can do so only if such suspicions are backed up by strong material and circumstantial evidence on the strength of which the Attorney-General can use the powers granted him in article 147 of the Penal Code. 1.9. Unlawful recruitment and representation that such recruitment is for lawful purposes Article 141 of the Penal Code comes under a special heading, i.e., offences committedagainst the security of the State. In view of the gravity of such offences, the Code provides that the penalty for plotting or abetting such crimes is the same as for the principal offence. Unquestionably, deceiving persons and misrepresenting the purposes of an act as lawful with a view to committing an unlawful act is one of the forms of abetting and plotting, and the law, particularly in the case of such offences, sanctions the motive and the intention, even if not translated into concrete acts. Indeed, article 139 of the Penal Code provides as follows: Plotting to commit any offence referred to in the articles of this chapter shall be punishable by the same penalty as that imposed thereunder for the actual perpetration of the offence. 1.10. The possession and carrying of, and dealing in, firearms are regulated by the Firearms Act, as follows: No person shall manufacture firearms or ammunition within the Kingdom except by permit from the Council of Ministers. No person shall import, export or deal in arms or ammunition within the Kingdom unless licensed to do so by the Minister of the Interior or a person delegated thereby. It is not permissible to export weapons from the Kingdom. It is absolutely forbidden to carry, sell, buy or possess guns of any type. Article 5 of the 1975 regulation on trading in arms specifies the conditions for the granting of a licence for dealing in arms. The Firearms Act provides deterrent penalties for anyone who violates its provisions. Article 11 of the Act contains the following provisions: Anyone who, without authorization, manufactures, imports, possesses, transports, sells or purchases or serves as an intermediary for the purchase or sale of any gun or automatic weapon for the purpose of using it in an unlawful manner shall receive the death penalty. Anyone who, without authorization, manufactures, imports, exports or attempts to export firearms or ammunition shall be subject to a penalty of hard labour for a term not less than 15 years, and the weapons shall be confiscated. Anyone who violates any other provision of this Act or any regulation issued in pursuance hereof shall be subject to a penalty of imprisonment for a term of up to three years, and the weapons shall be confiscated. The Act defines explosives as including all types of explosive substances. The term “explosive material” comprises all explosives, whatever their nature, devices for exploding them, caps, fuses, detonators, potassium nitrate (saltpetre), sodium nitrate (Chile saltpetre), potassium chlorate, ammonium chlorate and nitroglycerins, nitroglucoses, nitrocelluloses and nitrophenols of all types. Pursuant to article 148 of the Act, amended by Act No. 54 of 2001, a penalty consisting in a term of imprisonment with hard labour is imposed on any person who knowingly manufactures, procures or transports explosive or inflammable materials or poisonous, incendiary, infectious, bacteriological, chemical or radioactive agentsor the like or any components thereof for the purpose of carrying out terrorist acts or enabling another person to use them for such purpose. Within the framework of Arab cooperation to combat traffic in arms, article 2 of the Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism, signed in 1998, provides that the crimes of manufacturing, smuggling or possessing weapons, ammunition, explosives or other materiel or materials prepared for the perpetration of terrorist offences shall not be regarded as political offences, even if committed for political motives. Under article 3 of the Convention the Arab States undertake to develop and strengthen systems for the detection of the transport, importation, exportation and stockpiling of weapons, munitions and explosives and of other means of aggression, murder and destruction as well as procedures for monitoring their passage through customs and across borders in order to prevent their transfer from one Contracting State to another or to third-party States other than for confirmed lawful purposes. Within the framework of measures of suppression, the Arab States have undertaken to arrest the perpetrators of terrorist offences and to prosecute them in accordance with national law or extradite them in accordance with the provision of the Convention or of any bilateral treaty between the requesting State and the requested State. Article 4 provides that Contracting States shall cooperate for the prevention and suppression of terrorist offences through the exchange of information concerning the activities and crimes of terrorist groups; the sources of their funding; the types of weapons, munitions and explosives used by them; and other means of aggression, murder and destruction. Under the Convention, each Contracting State undertakes to furnish any other Contracting State with any information or data in its possession that might lead to the seizure of any weapons, munitions or explosives or any devices or funds used or intended for use in the commission of a terrorist offence. The Convention has been ratified by Jordan. 1.11. The Committee’s request to receive the list of “friendly countries” with which Jordan exchanges information concerning terrorist activities Jordan reiterates, as stated in its first supplementary report, that, with a view to achieving their desired objective, States do not openly discuss their security arrangements. In addition, no unity exists in this regard, inasmuch as the security of both Jordan and other States would be affected. 1.12. Progress report on the enactment of legislation to implement the Conventions ratified by Jordan in the field of counter-terrorism The Constitutional regime includes the principle that international conventions and obligations are added to domestic legislation, becoming a part of national law. As mentioned at the outset of this report, Jordan ratified the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism by virtue of a provisional law, owing to the fact that the National Assembly was not sitting at that time and due to the existence of necessity within the meaning of article 94 of the Constitution, whereby the executive power is permitted to issue a provisional law. When general elections were held and sessions of the National Assembly were convened,the law was referred to the Legal Committee of the Chamber of Deputies, where it is currently being discussed. It is hoped that it will be enacted in the near future. 1.13. Receipt of reports or questionnaires presented by organizations involved in monitoring international standards Attached hereto is a copy of the report prepared by the Arab Office of Criminal Police on follow-up of the implementation of the Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism. In conclusion, Jordan reaffirms its full cooperation with the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001) concerning counter￾terrorism and its readiness to receive future comments of the Committee.

510286

United Nations S/2003/1173 Security Council Distr.: General 15 December 2003 Original: English 03-65787 (E) 060104 060104 *0365787* Letter dated 4 December 2003 from the Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001) concerning counter-terrorism addressed to the President of the Security Council I write with reference to my letter of 13 November 2002 (S/2002/1254). The Counter-Terrorism Committee has received the attached third report from Morocco submitted pursuant to paragraph 6 of resolution 1373 (2001) (see annex). I would be grateful if you could arrange for the present letter and its annex to be circulated as a document of the Security Council. (Signed) Inocencio F. Arias Chairman Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001) concerning counter-terrorism Annex [Original: French] Note verbale dated 3 December 2003 from the Permanent Mission of Morocco to the United Nations addressed to the Chairman of the Counter-Terrorism Committee The Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of Morocco to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Counter-Terrorism Committee and has the honour to transmit to it, enclosed herewith, the third report of the Kingdom of Morocco on the implementation of Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) (see enclosure). Enclosure [Original: French] Third report of the Kingdom of Morocco to the Counter￾Terrorism Committee established pursuant to Security Council resolution 1373 (2001)* This report is being submitted pursuant to letter S/AC.40/Sub.Co.B/OC.73 of 8 October 2002 from the Counter-Terrorism Committee concerning the consideration of the second report submitted by Morocco, dated 10 July 2002, in which the Kingdom of Morocco informed the Committee of its intention to draft laws with respect to combating terrorism. Since then, the Kingdom of Morocco has adopted specific legislation to suppress terrorist crimes and prevent the financing of terrorism. It has completed the ratification procedure of all international conventions that are directly or indirectly related to terrorism. The Kingdom of Morocco, determined to spare no effort to combat terrorism, in accordance with international law and the international commitments that it has undertaken, is submitting herewith its replies to the questions by the Counter￾Terrorism Committee. 1.2. In the context of paragraph 1 of the resolution, the Counter-Terrorism Committee looks forward to receiving a report on the anti-money-laundering legislation that Morocco intends to put in place in order to be also in a position to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism. In particular, please explain the measures Morocco proposes to introduce in order to ensure transparency and accountability in the transmission of funds by financial institutions and alternative remittance systems. In the context of combating money-laundering and the financing of terrorism, Morocco has drafted a bill concerning those two scourges. However, in the light of the urgent need to combat terrorism, Morocco considered it appropriate to begin with the adoption of Act 03-03 on combating terrorism, published in No. 5112 of the Official Bulletin of the Kingdom of Morocco, dated 29 May 2003. This Act provides for several measures in the framework of combating the financing of terrorism, including, in particular: – Criminalization of the financing of terrorism. Article 4-218 of the Act defines a terrorist act as “the provision, raising or management of funds, securities or property, by whatever means, directly or indirectly, with a view to seeing them used, or in the knowledge that they will be fully or partly used, to commit a terrorist act, regardless of whether such an act occurs; and assisting or providing advice to achieve that end.” Such offences are punishable by a prison term of 5 to 30 years and fines of 500,000 to 5 million dirhams. Persons found guilty of financing terrorism are also subject to confiscation of all or part of their property. – Lifting of bank secrecy. Title IV of the aforementioned Act devoted to the suppression of the financing of terrorism will be incorporated into the Code of * Annexes are on file with the Secretariat and are available for consultation. Criminal Procedure. It gives judicial authorities the opportunity during any inquiry to obtain information on financial transactions or movements of funds suspected of being used to finance terrorism within 30 days of a request for such information. Judicial authorities may declare a freeze on or seizure of funds suspected of being used for terrorism. Banks may not invoke professional secrecy before these authorities or the Bank Almaghrib (the Central Bank) (article 595-4). – The protection of agents responsible for conducting special investigations concerning suspicious transactions from any threat or pressure while carrying out their duties. With respect to any deeds and acts carried out while missions entrusted to the Bank Almaghrib or other banks, in accordance with the law against terrorism, are being conducted, no prosecution or civil action may be undertaken against those establishments or their directors or agents. Furthermore, by requiring those directors and agents to take every necessary measure to ensure the secrecy of the investigations, the use of information gathered for purposes other than those provided for under the law is prohibited (article 595-5). – The adoption of the principle of international cooperation in efforts to combat the financing of terrorism. (See the response to question 1.10.) – With respect to the penal provisions under Act 03-03 on combating terrorism, it should be specified that they have been incorporated into the first part of the third chapter of the Criminal Code. 1.3. Effective implementation of paragraph 1 requires that the legal obligation to report suspicious transactions should extend to all professions engaged in financial transactions (such as lawyers and accountants) and not only to financial institutions. All these persons should be subjected to penalties for non-compliance in order to enable the effective prevention of the financing of terrorism. The Committee notes Morocco’s intention to put financial institutions under an obligation to report suspicious transactions; but it would be grateful if Morocco would comment on the action it intends to take in regard to all professions involved in financial transactions (including as intermediaries). The Kingdom of Morocco plans to require people working in professions, in addition to banking and financial institutions, to submit suspicious-transaction reports. 1.4. Having taken note of Morocco’s intention to criminalize the financing of terrorism along the lines of the International Convention for the Suppression and the Financing of Terrorism, the Committee would be interested to know how Morocco will implement article 2 of the Convention in its domestic criminal law. After the ratification by the Kingdom of Morocco of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and its publication in the Official Bulletin (No. 5104 of 1 June 2003), a copy of which is included in an annex, article 2 of this Convention has been taken into consideration in the final drafting of amendments introduced into the Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure in compliance with the law against terrorism, particularly concerning the definition of terrorism and an increase in applicable penalties. Indeed, Act 03-03 classifies as terrorist crime any crime committed intentionally in relation to an individual or collective activity with the goal of causing serious disruption of public order by intimidation, terror or violence; penalties have been increased, including the death penalty, and custodial sentences have been doubled. 1.5. Effective implementation of paragraph 1 of the resolution also requires the existence of legal provisions or administrative measures that ensure that funds and other economic resources collected by non-profit organizations (e.g. religious, charitable or cultural organizations) are not diverted for other than the stated purposes, particularly for financing of terrorism. Please explain whether such provisions or measures are in place in Morocco and, if not, how Morocco proposes to monitor the use of funds by non-profit organizations. Any collection of donations by charitable or religious organizations requires in all cases the authorization of competent authorities, namely the General Secretariat of the Government, and all funds originating from abroad and earmarked for Moroccan associations must be declared to this department. The aforementioned authorization is governed by the Act of 12 October 1971 on public fund-raising and the Act on associations (Dahir [royal decree] of 23 July 2002, a copy of which is included in the annex). Any infringement of this procedure shall be punished by the judicial authorities, and the penalty may include the disbanding of the association. Notwithstanding the legislation on public fund-raising, associations recognized as being in the public interest may, once a year and without prior authorization, raise funds publicly or collect money through other authorized means. However, they are required to make a declaration to the Secretary General of the Government (article 9 of the Dahir of 23 July 2002). 1.6. The Committee has taken note of Morocco’s intention to put in place legal provisions allowing for the freezing of terrorist funds. The Committee would also be particularly interested in an outline of the procedure which will lead to the freezing of such funds upon request of foreign authorities. In compliance with the international conventions to which Morocco is party, the law against terrorism establishes a cooperation regime at the international level to combat the financing of terrorism. In that context, it authorizes the Government, upon a request by a foreign State, to refer the matter to the judicial authorities in order to take the following measures: 1. Investigation and identification of proceeds from the financing of terrorism and property that has served or was meant to be used to commit such an offence or any property whose value corresponds to the proceeds from such an offence; 2. Freezing and seizure of property; 3. Protective measures in respect of property. A decision to freeze or seize funds handed down by a foreign judicial authority may also be implemented in Moroccan territory in accordance with the content and form of the conditions set by the aforementioned law. The Moroccan justice system has frozen the bank account of Said Bahaji, who was included on the consolidated list established by the Sanctions Committee pursuant to Security Council resolution 1267 (1999). 1.7. In the context of subparagraph 2 (a) of the resolution, please outline the legalprovisions and regulations regarding the possession, manufacture and transfer of weapons and explosives to which Dahir No. 1-58-286 of 2 September 1958 refers. I Explosives The legislative and regulatory documents that govern this area are as follows: – Dahir of 14 April 1914 on regulation of the production of explosives, amended and supplemented by the dahirs of 22 July 1938 and 24 February 1940; – Dahir of 30 January 1954 on the monitoring of explosives; – Dahir of 14 January 1914 regulating the importation, movement and sale of explosives in Morocco and setting the conditions for setting up warehouses, amended and supplemented by the Dahirs of 14 March 1933, 9 May 1936, 24 February 1940 and 30 January 1954. II Weapons and ammunition Weapons and ammunition are governed by the Dahir of 31 March 1937 regulating the importation, trade, carrying, possession and storing of weapons and their ammunition in Morocco. The importation of weapons other than weapons of war and their ammunition is subject to prior authorization issued by the Director General of Police or his deputy, in consultation with the local authority (articles 1 and 2). Trade in weapons and ammunition is subject to licensing granted by the Director General of Police or his deputy. Furthermore, permits to carry non￾concealed weapons are issued by the local authority representing the central authorities, in consultation with the security services. Permits to carry concealed weapons are issued by the Director General of Police in consultation with the local authority. Dahir No. 1-58-286 of 2 September 1958 on penalties for breaches of the regulations on firearms and explosives stipulates a prison term of 20 years for the possessor of weapons, ammunition, explosive material and deadly or incendiary instruments or tools. 1.8. Please provide the Committee with a copy of the relevant amendments to the penal legislation of Morocco, once enacted. In this context, the Committee would be interested to know when these amendments are expected to enter into force. The relevant amendments were introduced by Act 03-03 on combating terrorism published in No. 5112, dated 29 May 2003, of the Official Bulletin of the Kingdom of Morocco, a copy of which is included in an annex. These amendments entered into force, with respect to procedure, on the date of their publication in the Official Bulletin with and, with respect to substance, on 1 October 2003. 1.9. Please explain by which legal provisions Morocco is able to prevent the entry on its territory of alleged terrorists. A law on the entry and stay of foreigners in the Kingdom of Morocco and illegal emigration and immigration was adopted by the Moroccan parliament on 23 June 2003 (a copy of which is included in an annex). According to its provisions, particularly article 42, any foreigner who enters or attempts to enter Morocco in breach of the law is liable to a prison term of one to six months and a fine of between 2,000 and 20,000 dirhams, and the administration may deport him “in the interest of security and public order needs”. A foreigner may be deported if his registration card or residence permit has been revoked for reasons of a “threat to public order” (article 21). This law also stipulates in articles 14 and 16 that registration cards and residence permits may be refused to any foreigner “whose presence in Morocco constitutes a threat to public order”. Chapter IV (articles 25 to 27) deals with the deportation of foreigners, as follows: • A foreigner who poses a serious threat to public order falls under article 25; • Article 26 stipulates that “no time limit on deportation is required if the sentence involves an offence concerning terrorist-related activity”. 1.10. Please outline the existing or proposed legal provisions that criminalize the use of Moroccan territory for the purpose of financing, planning, facilitating or committing terrorist acts against other States or their citizens. Effective implementation of subparagraphs 2 (d) and (e) of the resolution requires that such provisions should be incorporated in the penal law of Morocco. Morocco, aware of its role in the maintenance of peace and stability in the world, prohibits the entry, accommodation or stay of terrorist elements in its national territory. The Moroccan criminal code punishes the use of national territory for the planning, organization or carrying out of terrorist crimes. Our international commitments are in line with this. Accordingly, the Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, to which Morocco is party, prohibits the use of national territory to plan, organize or carry out terrorist crimes against other States. Moroccan courts are competent to deal with all acts of complicity with or participation in terrorist crimes even if they are committed abroad and by foreigners if the main act was committed in Morocco. The arrangements of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism were taken into consideration during the drafting of the law against terrorism. 1.11. Effective implementation of subparagraph 2 (e) of the resolution requires that States ensure that persons who participate in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or who support such acts are brought to justice either by submitting the case without undue delay to their respective competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution or by extraditing these persons. This applies without any exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in their respective territories. Please explain how, in order to comply with these subparagraphs, Morocco would deal with a foreign national who is in Morocco and has committed a terrorist act outside Morocco against a State other than Morocco or against that State’s citizens. Is it possible under current or proposed law to prosecute that person in Morocco if he or she is not extradited? Please outline the relevant domestic legal provisions governing legal assistance in connection with (a) criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts and (b) in connection with extradition. Moroccan legislation does not provide for any proceedings against a foreigner located in Morocco if he has committed a terrorist act abroad against a State other than Morocco or against the nationals of that State. However, and in accordance with bilateral conventions relating to extradition, he maybe handed over to the authorities of a foreign country if the conditions required by Moroccan legislation with respect to extradition are met. The provisions of title III of book 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure coordinate the relations between Moroccan judicial authorities and their foreign counterparts and determine the modalities of implementation of letters rogatory and the extradition of criminals if there is no agreement in the field or if existing agreements are not brought to bear on the matter. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters is provided for in articles 713 to 749 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The modalities for such cooperation are defined in articles 189 to 193 of the Code. Articles 718 to 745 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for extradition by laying down the form and content of the conditions for its implementation. 1.12. Subparagraph 3 (d) of the resolution requires all States to become parties as soon as possible to all the relevant international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism. The Committee would appreciate receiving information on the progress made by Morocco in relation to becoming a party to the following: • International Convention against the Taking of Hostages; • The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material; • The International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings; and • The International Conventions for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism was ratified by Dahir No. 4.02.2 of 23 July 2002 and entered into force for Morocco on 19 October 2002. The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material was ratified by Dahir No. 4.91.3 of 23 July 2002 and entered into force for Morocco on 22 September 2002. The procedures for acceding to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings are in their final stages. 1.13. According to subparagraph 3 (g) of the resolution, States are required to ensure “that claims of political motivation are not recognized as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists”. Similar provisions exist in the Financing Convention (article 14) and in the Terrorist Bombing Convention (article 11). Subparagraph 3 (g) applies not only to persons who have committed offences according to article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, but to all alleged terrorists. The Committee looks forward to receiving a progress report on the action taken in order to adapt Moroccan legislation, and the extradition treaties Morocco has concluded with other countries, to the requirements of subparagraph 3 (g) of the resolution. The above-mentioned provisions concerning extradition and some bilateral legal conventions do not allow for extradition if the crime or offence is political in nature or if it appears that the request for extradition was made for political reasons. However, after its ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, Morocco will be in compliance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of article 11 of that Convention, which stipulates that: “The provisions of all extradition treaties and arrangements between States Parties with regard to offences set forth in article 2 shall be deemed to be modified as between States Parties to the extent that they are incompatible with this Convention”. Concerning the punitive provisions under Act 03-03 on combating terrorism, it should be recalled that they have been incorporated into the first part of the third book of the Criminal Code.

608769

United Nations A/C.4/62/3/Add.6 General Assembly Distr.: General 5 October 2007 Original: English 07-51824 (E) 041007 *0751824* Sixty-second session Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) Agenda item 40 Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples Question of Western Sahara Request for hearing Letter dated 19 September 2007 from Suzanne Scholte, representative of the Defense Forum Foundation, to the Chairman of the Committee* I wish to request the honour of addressing the Fourth Committee on the question of Western Sahara. (Signed) Suzanne Scholte Representative Defense Forum Foundation * Circulated in accordance with a decision taken by the Committee at its 1st meeting, on 4 October 2007.

500849

United Nations S/2003/40/Add.28 Security Council Distr.: General 25 July 2003 Original: English 03-46105 (E) 120803 *0346105* Summary statement by the Secretary-General on matters of which the Security Council is seized and on the stage reached in their consideration Addendum Pursuant to rule 11 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, the Secretary-General is submitting the following summary statement. The list of items of which the Security Council is seized is contained in documents S/2003/40 of 14 February 2003, S/2003/40/Add.3 of 21 February 2003, S/2003/40/Add.4 of 24 February 2003, S/2003/40/Add.11 of 28 March 2003, S/2003/40/Add.14 of 17 April 2003, S/2003/40/Add.19 of 23 May 2003, S/2003/40/Add.20 of 30 May 2003 and S/2003/40/Add.24 of 27 June 2003. During the week ending 19 July 2003, the Security Council took action on the following items: The situation between Eritrea and Ethiopia (see S/1998/44/Add.25; S/1999/25/Add.3, 5 and 7; S/2000/40/Add.18, 19, 30, 32, 36, 45 and 46; S/2001/15/Add.6, 11, 16, 20, 37 and 46; S/2002/30/Add.2, 9, 10, 19, 32 and 35; and S/2003/40/Add.10; see also S/2001/15/Add.37; S/2002/30/Add.10 and 32; and S/2003/40/Add.10) The Security Council resumed its consideration of the item at its 4787th meeting, held on 17 July 2003 in accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations, having before it the progress report of the Secretary-General on Ethiopia and Eritrea (S/2003/665). The President stated that, following consultations of the Council, he had been authorized to make a statement on behalf of the Council and read out the text of that statement (for the text, see S/PRST/2003/10; to be issued in Official Records of the Security Council, Resolutions and Decisions of the Security Council, 1 August 2002- 31 July 2003). The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question (see S/2000/40/Add.39, 44, 46, 47 and 50; S/2001/15/Add.11-13, 34 and 50; S/2002/30/Add.7, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, 23, 24, 28, 29, 37, 38, 45 and 50; and S/2003/40/Add.2, 6, 11, 15, 20 and 23; see also S/7382, S/7441, S/7452, S/7564, S/7570, S/7596, S/7600, S/7913, S/7923, S/7976, S/8000, S/8048, S/8066, S/8215, S/8242, S/8252, S/8269, S/8502, S/8525, S/8534, S/8564, S/8575, S/8584, S/8595, S/8747, S/8753, S/8807, S/8815, S/8828, S/8836, S/8885, S/8896, S/8960, S/9123, S/9135, S/9319, S/9382, S/9395, S/9406, S/9427 and Corr.1, S/9449, S/9452, S/9805, S/9812, S/9930, S/10327, S/10341, S/10554, S/10557, S/10703, S/10721, S/10729, S/10743, S/10770/Add.4, S/10855/Add.15, 16, 23, 24, 29, 30, 33, 41, 43, 44 and 50; S/11185/Add.14-16, 21, 42/Rev.1 and 47; S/11593/Add.15, 21, 29, 42 and 49; S/11935/Add.2-4, 12, 18-21, 23-26, 42, 44, 45 and 48; S/12269/Add.12, 13, 21, 42, 43 and 48; S/12520/Add.10, 11, 17, 21, 37, 39, 42, 47 and 48; S/13033/Add.2, 9-11, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 33, 34, 47 and 50; S/13737/Add.7, 8, 13-18, 20-22, 24-26, 33, 47 and 50; S/14326/Add.10, 11, 20, 24, 28, 29, 47 and 50; S/14840/Add.1-4, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21-25, 27, 30-33, 37, 42, 45 and 48; S/15560/Add.3, 6, 7, 20, 21, 29-31, 37, 42, 45, 47 and 48; S/16270/Add.6-8, 15, 20, 21, 34, 35, 40 and 47; S/16880/Add.8-10, 15, 20, 21, 36, 40, 41 and 46; S/17725/Add.2-4, 15, 21, 28, 35, 38, 43 and 47-49; S/18570/Add.2, 21, 30, 47 and 49-51; S/19420/Add.1-5, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22 and Corr.1, 30, 48 and 50; S/20370/Add.4-6, 12, 16, 21, 22, 26, 30, 32, 34, 37, 44, 46, 47 and 51; S/21100/Add.4, 10, 12, 17, 20, 21, 30, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45 and 47-50; S/22110/Add.4, 12, 20, 21, 30 and 47; S/23370/Add.1, 4, 7, 13, 21, 30, 47 and 50; S/25070/Add.4, 21, 30 and 48; S/1994/20/Add.3, 8, 10, 20, 29 and 47; S/1995/40/Add.4, 8, 18, 19, 21, 29 and 47; S/1996/15/Add.4, 15, 21, 30, 38 and 47; S/1997/40/Add.4, 9, 11, 21, 30 and 46; S/1998/44/Add.4, 21, 26, 28, 30 and 47; S/1999/25/Add.3, 20, 29 and 46; S/2000/40/Add.4,15, 20, 21, 24, 29 and 47; S/2001/15/Add.5, 22, 31 and 48; S/2002/30/Add.4, 21, 30 and 50; and S/2003/40/Add.4 and 25) The Security Council resumed its consideration of the item at its 4788th meeting, held on 17 July 2003 in accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations. In accordance with the understanding reached in the Council’s prior consultations, the President, with the consent of the Council, extended an invitation under rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure to Terje Roed-Larsen, Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and Personal Representative of the Secretary-General. The situation in Sierra Leone (see S/1995/40/Add.47; S/1996/15/Add.6, 11 and 48; S/1997/40/Add.21, 27, 31, 40 and 45; S/1998/44/Add.8, 11, 15, 20, 22, 28 and 50; S/1999/25 and Add.1, 9, 18, 22, 32, 41 and 48; S/2000/40/Add.5, 10, 17-19, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 43 and 50; S/2001/15/Add.4, 13, 26, 38 and 51; S/2002/30/Add.2, 12, 20, 27, 38 and 48; and S/2003/40/Add.12; see also S/2001/15/Add.7, 10, 20 and 37; S/2002/30/Add.11 and 37; and S/2003/40/Add.11) The Security Council resumed its consideration of the item at its 4789th meeting, held on 18 July 2003 in accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations, having before it the eighteenth report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (S/2003/663). The President drew attention to a draft resolution (S/2003/713) that had been prepared in the course of the Council’s prior consultations. The Security Council proceeded to vote on draft resolution S/2003/713, and adopted it unanimously as resolution 1492 (2003) (for the text, see S/RES/1492 (2003); to be issued in Official Records of the Security Council, Resolutions and Decisions of the Security Council, 1 August 2002-31 July 2003). The situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo (see S/1997/40/Add.21; S/1998/44/Add.35 and 49; S/1999/25/Add.10, 13, 24, 30, 43, 47 and 49; S/2000/40/Add.3, 7, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 30, 33, 40, 47 and 49; S/2001/15/Add.5, 8, 18, 24, 30, 35, 36, 43, 45, 50 and 51; S/2002/30/Add.4, 8, 11, 20, 22, 23, 29, 31, 32, 36, 41, 42, 44 and 48; and S/2003/40/Add.3, 6, 11, 19, 21, 25 and 27; see also S/1996/15/Add.43-45; S/1997/40/Add.5, 7, 9, 13, 16 and 17; S/1998/44/Add.28; S/2001/15/Add.42 and 43; S/2002/30/Add.9, 23 and 37; and S/2003/40/Add.22) The Security Council resumed its consideration of the item at its 4790th meeting, held on 18 July 2003 in accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations. The President, with the consent of the Council, invited the representatives of Bangladesh, Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Nepal, the Philippines, Rwanda and South Africa, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. In accordance with the understanding reached in the Council’s prior consultations, the President, with the consent of the Council, extended invitations under rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure to Jean-Marie Guéhenno, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, and Amos Namanga Ngongi, former Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In response to the request contained in a letter dated 14 July 2003 from the Permanent Representative of Italy to the United Nations (S/2003/709), the President, with the consent of the Council, extended an invitation under rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure to Javier Solana, Secretary-General and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union.

508762

UNITED NATIONS E Economic and Social Council Distr. GENERAL E/C.12/1/Add.91 12 December 2003Original: ENGLISH COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS Thirty-first session 10-28 November 2003 CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLES 16 AND 17 OF THE COVENANT Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA 1. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights considered the initial report of the Republic of Moldova on the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/1990/5/Add.52) at its 32nd to 34th meetings, held on 11 and 12 November 2003 (see E/C.12/2003/SR.32-34), and adopted, at its 56th meeting, held on 28 November 2003 (see E/C.12/2003/SR.56), the following concluding observations. A. Introduction 2. The Committee welcomes the submission of the initial report of the State party, which was prepared in general conformity with the Committee’s guidelines, as well as the information provided in the written replies to its list of issues. 3. The Committee welcomes the open and constructive dialogue with the delegation of the State party. The Committee regrets that there were not enough experts in the delegation in the field of economic, social and cultural rights, who could provide more information to the Committee on the concrete measures taken by the State party to implement its obligations under the Covenant. GE.03-45776 (E) 151203 B. Positive aspects 4. The Committee welcomes the adoption in 1993 of theConstitution of the Republic of Moldova, which incorporates international principles of human rights, as well as the State party’s accession to six of the seven main international human rights treaties. 5. The Committee welcomes the establishment in 1998 of the Centre for Human Rights of Moldova, consisting primarily of three ombudspersons empowered to deal with cases of human rights violations. 6. The Committee welcomes the adoption on 24 October 2003 of the National Human Rights Action Plan (for the period 2004-2008), in conformity with the recommendations of the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. The Committee also notes with appreciation the Baseline Study on the Human Rights Status in the Republic of Moldova carried out by the Coordinating Committee for the Development and Implementation of the National Human Rights Action Plan, with the support of the United Nations Development Programme and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, evaluating the compatibility of national legislation with international human rights standards. 7. The Committee welcomes the establishment of a National Commission for Women’s Issues in 1999 and the adoption of the National Plan to Promote Gender Equality in Society in 2003. 8. The Committee welcomes the new Labour Code of 29 August 2003 and the Law on Employment and Social Protection for Job Seekers of 13 March 2003. 9. The Committee welcomes the State party’s ratification in 2002 of International Labour Organization Convention No. 182 concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour. C. Factors and difficulties impeding the implementation of the Covenant 10. The Committee notes that the State party encountered difficulties in the implementation of the Covenant arising from the organization of its national economy as a newly independent State and from the transition to a market-oriented economy. The Committee also notes that the Transnistrian region, which is part of the State party’s territory, is effectively outside the State party’s control. D. Principal subjects of concern 11. The Committee regrets that national courts have so far not made reference to the Covenant in any of their rulings. 12. The Committee notes with concern that the State party faces serious problems of corruption, which have a negative effect on the full exercise of the rights covered by the Covenant. The Committee is also concerned that low salaries of civil servants and judges may obstruct the effective implementation of measures to combat corruption. 13. The Committee is concerned about the extent to which gender inequality persists in Moldova. 14. The Committee is concerned about the high rates of unemployment, particularly among young people, women and the Roma population. The Committee notes with great concern, in this regard, that the lack of employment opportunities and low salaries have prompted massive emigration of people in the active and working age, a majority of whom work abroad illegally without social insurance and legal protection. 15. The Committee is concerned about the persistent gap in wages between women and men despite the Remuneration Act No. 847 of 14 February 2002, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex in determining remuneration. 16. The Committee is concerned that the minimum wage in the State party is not sufficient to provide workers with a decent living for themselves and their families in contravention of articles 7 and 11 of the Covenant. 17. The Committee expresses its concern that the current levels of social benefits and pensions are inadequate. 18. The Committee is concerned about the absence of adequate statistical data on social benefits since 1997 in the State party’s report. 19. The Committee is alarmed about the extent of trafficking in persons, particularly women, despite the various measures taken by the State party to prevent and combat this phenomenon, including the adoption in 2001 of a National Plan of Action against the Trafficking in Human Beings and the introduction of sanctions against trafficking-related crimes under the new Penal Code of 2002. 20. The Committee is concerned that violence against women remains widespread. The Committee notes with regret that existing legislation does not define “domestic violence” as a specific offence. Lack of crisis centres for victims of domestic violence is also a cause for concern. 21. The Committee is concerned about the large number of children placed in institutions, especially those with slight mental disabilities. The Committee is also concerned that children left in the care of relatives or other persons while their parents travel abroad in search of employment are at risk of abuse and neglect. 22. The Committee is concerned that an estimated 40 per cent of the population live in absolute poverty, and that extreme poverty is especially pronounced in rural areas and among children. 23. The Committee notes with concern that rising real estate prices have negatively affected the accessibility and affordability of housing for a large part of the population and that the State party is not taking adequate measures to deal with this problem. 24. The Committee is concerned about the deterioration of the public health system and notes with regret that conditions in hospitals, especially psychiatric hospitals, are inadequate. 25. The Committee is alarmed about the rising incidence of tuberculosis inthe State party and notes with particular concern the acuteness of this problem in prisons where the infection rate is more than 40 times higher than the national average, according to the 2003 Baseline Study on the Human Rights Status in the Republic of Moldova. 26. The Committee is concerned about the rising incidence of HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases in the State party. In this regard, it is also concerned that sex education classes held in urban areas are almost non-existent in rural areas. 27. The Committee is concerned about the continuing high level of infant and maternal mortality. It is also concerned that the number of abortions remains high (15.6 per 1,000 women of fertile age in 2002), notwithstanding the ongoing programmes in the area of reproductive health. 28. The Committee is concerned that drug abuse is a serious problem in the State party, with the number of drug addicts having more than doubled in the last five years despite the establishment of an interdepartmental commission to fight drug addiction in 2000 and the launch of a programme to fight drug addiction and the drugs business in the period 2003-2004. 29. The Committee is concerned about the high rates of non-attendance and high dropout rates in primary and secondary education. It notes with particular concern that the main reason for non-attendance is acute family poverty. The Committee is also concerned about the lack of pre-school education. E. Suggestions and recommendations 30. The Committee requests the State party to clarify in its second periodic report whether individuals within the State party’s territory may invoke the rights enshrined in the Covenant before the domestic courts and to provide relevant case law, if available. In this respect, the Committee draws the attention of the State party to its general comment No. 9 (1998) on the domestic application of the Covenant. Moreover, the Committee recommends that the State party take measures to raise awareness of the Covenant and of the possibility of invoking its provisions before the courts, among the judiciary and the public at large. 31. The Committee recommends that the Centre for Human Rights give prominence to economic, social and cultural rights in its activities. 32. The Committee requests the State party to provide in its second periodic report detailed information on the implementation of the National Human Rights Plan of Action. 33. The Committee urges the State party to strengthen its efforts to combat corruption, including by ensuring the effective functioning of the Anti-corruption Committee and to work towards ensuring a better remuneration for civil servants and judges. 34. The Committee urges the State party to continue to reinforce its efforts to promote inter-ethnic dialogue and tolerance among the different ethnic groups living within its jurisdiction with a view to eliminating discrimination. 35. The Committee recommends that the State party strengthen its efforts to promote gender equality in all spheres of life, including by ensuring the effective implementation of the National Plan to Promote Gender Equality in Society. 36. The Committee recommends that the State party strengthen its efforts to improve job opportunities for young people, women and Roma people. It also recommends that the State party seek to conclude international agreements with a view to ensuring the social protection of migrant workers and, in particular, accede to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. 37. The Committee recommends that the State party take effective measures to reduce inequality between men and women in the labour market, including by ensuring equal pay for work of equal value, and to report back on progress made in its next periodic report. 38. The Committee urges the State party to increase its efforts to establish a national minimum wage which is sufficient to ensure an adequate standard of living for workers and their families according to articles 7 and 11 of the Covenant. Moreover, the State party should introduce a mechanism to determine and regularly adjust minimum wage in proportion to the cost of living as envisaged in the draft legislation on the subsistence level. 39. The Committee urges the State party to ensure that the social security and pension systems under reform give special attention to the needs of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in society. The Committee requests the State party to provide detailed information on the results of the implementation of the reformed pension scheme in its next periodic report. 40. The Committee recommends that the State party develop a reliable database providing timely, disaggregated and comparative statistics on social security issues and include these statistics in its next periodic report. 41. The Committee urges the State party to reinforce its efforts to combat the phenomenon of trafficking in persons, including by ensuring the effective implementation of anti-trafficking legislation and programmes and by improving job possibilities and assistance to women living in poverty. In view of the cross-border character of trafficking-related crimes, the State party is encouraged to seek international assistance and strengthen regional cooperation with countries to which Moldovans are trafficked. 42. The Committee encourages the State party to consider defining “domestic violence” as a specific offence under the Penal Code. It also encourages the State party to give effect to the planned amendments of the Civil Procedure Code, which aim to protect victims of domestic violence. The Committee also recommends that the State party increase the number of crisis centres where victims of domestic violence could find safe lodging and counselling. 43. The Committee recommends that the State party strengthen its efforts to reduce the number of children living in institutions, including by strengthening family support measures and by developing alternative forms of family care. The State party should ensure that children in institutions as well as all other children deprived of their natural family environment grow up in an atmosphere of emotional and material security. 44. The Committee calls upon the State party to strengthen its efforts to combat poverty under the Programme on Poverty Alleviation and to give special attention to the most vulnerable groups, including children and people living in rural areas. It urges the State party to develop a mechanism for measuring the poverty level and to monitor it closely. The Committee requests that the State party provide in its next periodic report disaggregated and comparative data on the number of people living below the poverty line. 45. The Committee encourages the State party to ensure that resources are allocated for the provision of social housing, especially to the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, including the Roma. The Committee also recommends that the State party undertake a study on the problem of homeless people and to report back on its findings in its next periodic report. 46. The Committee recommends that the State party take effective measures to ensure the quality, affordability and accessibility of health services, especially in rural areas. In this respect, the Committee draws the attention of the State party to its general comment No. 14 (2000) on the right to the highest attainable standard of health and requests detailed information, on a disaggregated and comparative basis, on progress made in the second periodic report. 47. The Committee recommends that the State party intensify its efforts under the National Programme on Tuberculosis Prophylaxis and Control to combat the spread of tuberculosis, including by ensuring the availability of medicines and adequate sanitary conditions in prisons. 48. The Committee recommends that the State party intensify its efforts to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, including through public information campaigns and by ensuring that sex education is also introduced to schools in rural areas. 49. The Committee urges the State party to reinforce its efforts to reduce infant and maternal mortality by increasing health coverage for women and children. The Committee calls upon the State party to strengthen efforts to promote awareness of sexual and reproductive health, safe contraceptive methods and the health risk of using abortion as a method of birth control, and to report on the results of such measures in its next periodic report. 50. The Committee calls on the State party to ensure the effective implementation of programmes to prevent and combat drug abuse, especially among young people. It requests the State party to provide disaggregated and comparative data on this problem in its next periodic report. 51. The Committee urges the State party to reinforce its efforts to ensure that children are not prevented from attending school because of poverty in the family. It also recommends that the State party consider establishing new pre-school educational institutions. The Committee requests the State party to provide in its next periodic report disaggregated data on a comparative basis on enrolment and dropout rates among boys and girls and vulnerable groups. It refers the State party to its general comment No. 13 (1999) for guidance in this regard. 52. The Committee requests the State party to disseminate its concluding observations widely among all levels of society and to inform the Committee on all steps taken to implement them in its next periodic report. It also encourages the State party to engage non-governmental organizations and other members of civil society in the process of discussion at the national level prior to the submission of its second periodic report. 53. Finally, the Committee requests the State party to submit its second periodic report by 30 June 2008. -----

534217

General Assembly Distr.: Limited 27 October 2004 Original: English 04-57504 (E) 271004 *0457504* Fifty-ninth session First Committee Agenda item 65 (z) General and complete disarmament: the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, Uganda, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe: revised draft resolution The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects The General Assembly, Recalling its resolutions 56/24 V of 24 December 2001, 57/72 of 22 November 2002 and 58/241 of 23 December 2003, Emphasizing the importance of early and full implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects,1 Welcoming the efforts by Member States to submit, on a voluntary basis, national reports on their implementation of the Programme of Action, Noting with satisfaction regional and subregional efforts being undertaken in support of the implementation of the Programme of Action, and commending the progress that has already been made in this regard, Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of resolution 58/241,2 Welcoming the convening of the open-ended working group to negotiate an international instrument to enable States to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner, illicit small arms and light weapons, which held its first two-week substantive session in New York from 14 to 25 June 2004, Welcoming also the broad-based consultations held by the Secretary-General with all Member States, interested regional and subregional organizations, international agencies and experts in the field on further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in small arms and light weapons, and noting the report of the Secretary-General in this regard, 1. Decides that the United Nations conference to review progress made in the implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects1 will be held in New York for a period of two weeks between 26 June and 7 July 2006; 2. Also decides that the preparatory committee for the conference will hold a two-week session in New York from 9 to 20 January 2006, and reiterates that, if necessary, a subsequent session of up to two weeks in duration may be held; 3. Further decides that the second biennial meeting of States, as stipulated in the Programme of Action, to consider the national, regional and global implementation of the Programme of Action will be held in New York from 11 to 15 July 2005; 4. Expresses its appreciation for the efforts undertaken by the Chair of the open-ended working group to negotiate an international instrument to enable States to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner, illicit small arms and light weapons, encourages the continued active participation of delegations in the remaining sessions of the working group, and stresses the importance of making every effort to ensure that a positive outcome is achieved by the open-ended working group; 5. Requests the Secretary-General, while seeking the views of States, to continue to hold broad-based consultations, within available financial resources, with all Member States and interested regional and subregional organizations, on further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in small arms and light weapons, with a view to establishing, after the 2006 review conference and no later than 2007, and after the conclusion of the open-ended working group to negotiate an international instrument to enable States to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner, illicit small arms and light weapons, a group of governmental experts, appointed by him on the basis of equitable geographical representation, to consider further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in small arms and light weapons, and requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its sixtieth session on the outcome of his consultations; 6. Reaffirms the importance of ongoing efforts at the regional and subregional levels in support of the implementation of the Programme of Action, and invites all Member States that have not yet done so to examine the possibility of developing and adopting regional and subregional measures, as appropriate, to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects; 7. Continues to encourage all initiatives to mobilize resources and expertise to promote the implementation of the Programme of Action and to provide assistance to States in its implementation; 8. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to collate and circulate data and information provided by States on a voluntary basis, including national reports, on the implementation by those States of the Programme of Action, and encourages Member States to submit such reports; 9. Also requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its sixtieth session on the implementation of the present resolution, including any outcome of the open-ended working group to negotiate an international instrument to enable States to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner, illicit small arms and light weapons; 10. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its sixtieth session the item entitled “The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects”.

428390

English Original: French 00-76787 (E) ````````` Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court Working Group on Financial Regulations and Rules New York 27 November-8 December 2000 Proposal by Benin concerning regulation 8 of the draft Financial Regulations contained in document PCNICC/2000/WGFIRR/L.1 1. The title of regulation 8 should be amended to read: “Custody and management of funds” 2. Consequently, the regulation should be reformulated in order to involve the President in the withdrawal of funds instead of having this financial operation be performed exclusively by the Registrar. The following wording could be used: “They are jointly managed by the Registrar and the President of the Court.”

439896

United Nations S/2001/462 Security Council Distr.: General 9 May 2001 English Original: French 01-36678 (E) 090501 090501 *0136678* Note verbale dated 4 May 2001 from the Permanent Mission of Burkina Faso to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council The Permanent Mission of Burkina Faso to the United Nations presents its compliments to the President of the Security Council and has the honour to inform him, in implementation of Council resolution 1333 (2000) of 19 December 2000, paragraphs 5 and 8 to 11, that Burkina Faso currently maintains no military or other relationship with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and does not intend to establish such a relationship. Furthermore, it should be noted that on 9 February 2001 the Government of Burkina Faso issued a notice to importers and exporters prohibiting all activities connected with the products referred to in resolution 1333 (2000), whether they are of Afghan origin or of Afghan provenance. The Permanent Mission of Burkina Faso would be grateful if the President of the Security Council would have this note circulated as a document of the Council.

473887

United Nations A/55/482/Add.1 General Assembly Distr.: General 20 February 2001 Original: English 01-25712 (E) 010301 ````````` Fifty-fifth session Agenda item 138 (b) Financing of the United Nations peacekeeping forces in the Middle East: United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon Revised budget for United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon for the period from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001 Report of the Secretary-General Summary By its resolution 55/180 of 19 December 2000, the General Assembly appropriated the amount of $86,758,400 gross ($86,301,300 net) for the expansion of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) for the period from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001, in addition to the amount of $146,833,694 gross ($141,889,841 net) already appropriated under the provisions of its resolution 54/267 of 15 June 2000. The total resources provided by the General Assembly for UNIFIL for the period therefore amount to $233,592,094 gross ($228,191,141 net). This appropriated amount was based on the force strength of 7,900 endorsed in a statement by the President of the Security Council on behalf of the Council on 23 May 2000 (S/PRST/2000/18). Shortly after the revised financing action taken by the General Assembly in resolution 55/180, it was confirmed that the budgeted deployment of two battalions would not take place. Subsequently, the Security Council, by its resolution 1337 (2001) of 30 January 2001, inter alia, extended the mandate of the Force to 31 July 2001 and endorsed the proposals contained in paragraph 24 of the report of the Secretary-General of 22 January 2001 (S/2001/66), including, as a possible first stage of the suggested reconfiguration of the Force, the return of UNIFIL to its previous strength, before its augmentation in 2000 to about 4,500 troops, by 31 July 2001. Based on these developments, the Secretary-General has taken the initiative to immediately reduce the approved gross budget for UNIFIL by $26,437,900, to $207,154,194, exclusive of budgeted voluntary contributions in kind amounting to $180,000. The action to be taken by the General Assembly are set out in paragraph 9 of the present report. Contents Paragraphs Page I. Introduction .......................................................... 1–8 3 II. Action to be taken by the General Assembly at the first part of its resumed fifty￾fifth session .......................................................... 9 4 Annexes I. Revised requirements for the period from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001: summary statement . . 5 II. Staffing requirements ............................................................ 7 I. Introduction 1. The original budget of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) for the period from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001, as contained in document A/54/724, amounted to $139,547,600 gross ($135,721,900 net), inclusive of budgeted voluntary contribution in kind, and was based on an average troop strength of 4,513 supported by 141 international and 350 local staff. The General Assembly, by its resolution 54/267 of 15 June 2000, appropriated an amount of $146,833,694 gross ($141,889,841 net), inclusive of the mission’s pro-rated share of the support account for peacekeeping operations and the United Nations Logistics Base at Brindisi, Italy. 2. With the withdrawal of Israeli Defence Forces from Lebanon in May 2000, the operational role of the Force changed significantly. The operational changes arising from the expansion of the Force and their related implications were outlined in paragraphs 31 to 34 of the report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council of 22 May 2000 (S/2000/460), which was subsequently endorsed by the Council in its presidential statement of 23 May 2000 (S/PRST/2000/18). 3. On that basis, a revised budget for UNIFIL for the period from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001 was submitted on 13 October 2000 (A/55/482), which amounted to $233,772,000, $86,758,400 (gross) ($86,301,300 net) higher than the original appropriation. The additional requirements of $86,758,400 (gross) provided for expansion of the Force based on an increase in troop strength to approximately 7,900 from the previous authorized level of 4,513 and an increase in the civilian establishment by 81 posts (34 international posts and 47 local posts) in support of the operational objectives and military component. 4. Taking into account the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions contained in its report on UNIFIL (A/55/516, para.12), the General Assembly, by its resolution 55/180 of 19 December 2000, approved the revised budget for UNIFIL as proposed by the Secretary-General without change. 5. However, after this financing action by the General Assembly, it was confirmed that the budgeted deployment of two battalions early in 2001 would not take place. 6. Moreover, in paragraph 24 of the report of the Secretary-General to the Secretary Council of 22 January 2001 (S/2001/66), a number of proposals were submitted, including, the extension of UNIFIL’s mandate for a period of six months, in view of the situation in the region, and, as possible first stage of the suggested reconfiguration of the Force, the return of Force strength to its previous level, before its augmentation in 2000 to about 4,500, by 31 July 2001. 7. By its resolution 1337 (2001) of 30 January 2001, the Security Council decided to extend the present mandate of UNIFIL for a further period of six months, until 31 July 2001, and endorsed the general approach for the reconfiguration of UNIFIL, as outlined in the report of the Secretary-General (S/2001/66, para. 24). Furthermore, the Security Council requested that the Secretary-General take the necessary measures to implement this decision, including taking into account the upcoming rotations of the battalions in consultation with the Government of Lebanon and the troop-contributing countries. 8. In view of these developments, the Secretary-General has taken the initiative to immediately reduce the approved budget of $233,772,000 by $26,437,900, to $207,334,100, including budgeted voluntary contributions in kind of $180,000. This reduction of $26,437,900 includes reductions under troop costs ($22,104,800), civilian personnel costs ($2,020,900) and staff assessment ($228,600) as a result of the suppression of 31 civilian posts, and under operational requirements ($2,083,600). The as yet unquantified cost of the repatriation of certain contingents and their contingent-owned equipment will be met from within this reduced budget level. II. Action to be taken by the General Assembly at the first part of its resumed fifty-fifth session 9. The actions to be taken by the General Assembly at the first part of its resumed fifty-fifth session in connection with the financing of UNIFIL are as follows: (a) To reduce the appropriation provided under General Assembly resolutions 54/267 and 55/180 for the maintenance and expansion of the Force for the 12-month period from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001 to the amount of $207,154,194 gross ($201,981,841 net), inclusive of the amount of $6,967,059 gross ($5,895,590 net) for the support account for peacekeeping operations and the amount of $1,089,216 gross ($969,161 net) for the United Nations Logistics Base; (b) To reduce the apportionment provided by General Assembly resolutions 54/267 and 55/180 for the period from 1 February to 30 June 2001 to the amount of $70,892,138 gross ($68,870,345 net), taking into account the amount of $136,262,056 gross ($133,111,496 net) already apportioned for the period from 1 July 2000 to 31 January 2001. revised revised revised 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

533349

UNITED NATIONS Distr. LIMITED FCCC/SBSTA/2004/L.7/Add.1 24 June 2004 Original: ENGLISH SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE Twentieth session Bonn, 16–25 June 2004 Agenda item 3 (e) Methodological issues Issues relating to Articles 7 and 8 of the Kyoto Protocol Draft conclusions proposed by the co-chairs of the contact group on agenda item 3 (e) Addendum Recommendation of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), at its twentieth session, decided to recommend the following draft decision for adoption by the Conference of the Parties at its tenth session. Draft decision -/CP.10 Issues relating to the technical review of greenhouse gas inventories of Parties included in Annex I to the Convention and the implementation of Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol The Conference of the Parties, Recalling Article 12, paragraph 9, of the Convention and decisions 23/CP.7, 19/CP.8, 12/CP.9 and 21/CP.9, Having considered the relevant recommendations of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, 1. Requests Parties included in Annex I to the Convention (Annex I Parties) whose inventories contain information that is designated as confidential to provide this information during centralized and in-country reviews, at the request of an expert review team, in accordance with the code of practice for the treatment of confidential information adopted by decision 12/CP.9; 2. Requests the secretariat to facilitate timely accessby expert review teams to information during these reviews, in accordance with the code of practice for the treatment of confidential information adopted by decision 12/CP.9; 3. Decides that an Annex I Party may, at its discretion and in cooperation with the secretariat, make confidential inventory information available to expert review teams during those periods in which experts are neither present in the country under review nor at the offices of the secretariat, through appropriate procedures, provided that these procedures do not entail additional financial costs for the secretariat. A Party’s decision not to submit confidential information in those periods does not constitute an inconsistency with the reporting requirements relating to Annex I Parties’ greenhouse gas inventories; 4. Requests the secretariat to avoid the organization of further desk reviews for those Annex I Parties where it is known that the expert review team could not access confidential information requested during a desk review, and instead subject those Parties to centralized or in-country reviews, to the extent that resources permit; 5. Recommends that the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its first session adopt draft decision -/CMP.1 (Issues relating to the implementation of Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol) below. Draft decision -/CMP.1 Issues relating to the implementation of Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, Recalling decisions 23/CP.7, in particular paragraph 9 of the annex to draft -/CMP (Guidelines for review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol) attached to that decision, 12/CP.9 and 21/CP.9, Having considered decision -/CP.10, 1. Decides that the content of the paragraphs 1 to 4 of decision -/CP.10 relating to access to confidential information by inventory expert review teams for the technical review of greenhouse gas inventories of Parties included in Annex I to the Convention (Annex I Parties), shall apply and be given full effect for the reviews of inventories under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol; 2. Decides that the expert review team shall note in the review report the relevant information requested by the expert review team, that was designated as confidential by the Annex I Party, to which it did not have access; 3. Decides that, as an exception to paragraph 10 of the technical guidance on methodologies for adjustments annexed to decision -/CMP.1 (Technical guidance on methodologies for adjustments under Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Kyoto Protocol) attached to decision 20/CP.9, an expert review team may recommend, on the basis of review of inventory information of an Annex I Party that is designated as confidential by this Party, the retroactive application of an adjustment for the relevant years of the commitment period, for which a review team was not given opportunities to access the confidential information in question, as noted in previous review reports; 4. Decides that, with respect to any adjustments applied retroactively in accordance with paragraph 3 above, only the adjustment applied for the current inventory year under review shall be relevant for the eligibility requirements laid out in paragraph 3 (e) of draft decision -/CMP.1 (Guidelines for the preparation of the information required under Article 7 of the Kyoto Protocol) attached to decision 22/CP.7; 5. Decides that, for the inventory submitted for the final year of the commitment period, all Annex I Parties shall be subject to in-country or centralized reviews. - - - - -

569531

United Nations A/60/704 General Assembly Distr.: General 1 March 2006 English Original: Spanish 06-25823 (E) 030306 060306 *0625823* Sixtieth session Agenda items 71 and 118 Human rights questions United Nations reform: measures and proposals Letter dated 1 March 2006 from the Permanent Representative of Cuba to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General I have the honour to transmit the statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba (see annex). The document condemns the threat of the United States delegation to request a vote on, and vote against, the draft resolution officially submitted by the President of the General Assembly to establish modalities for the Human Rights Council, even though it had been meticulously composed and was the product of behind-the￾scenes negotiations aimed precisely at accommodating the main requirements of the United States of America, despite the knowledge that those requirements would not have the majority support of the Member States of the United Nations. The truth about this new attack on multilateralism, the United Nations and the peoples of the South must be made known. Cuba warns that it will not be an accomplice to another incipient shady deal. It is vital at this time to stand up for justice, international law and much-needed international cooperation in promoting and protecting all human rights for all individuals. I should be grateful if this letter and its annex could be circulated as a document of the General Assembly in connection with agenda items 71 and 118. (Signed) Rodrigo Malmierca Díaz Permanent Representative of Cuba to the United Nations Annex to the letter dated 1 March 2006 from the Permanent Representative of Cuba to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba 28 February 2006 We are witnessing a new strike against multilateralism and the United Nations. The United States of America has threatened to request a vote on, and vote against, the draft resolution put forward on Thursday, 23 February by the President of the General Assembly of the United Nations to establish modalities for the Human Rights Council, the body destined to replace the current Commission on Human Rights. As is well known, the Commission on Human Rights was brought down by discredit because the Bush Administration and its allies and accomplices in the European Union politically manipulated its operation. Yesterday — Monday, 27 February — the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, acting on orders from the hawks in the White House which went against the wishes of no less a body than the United States Congress, said that he had been instructed to reopen negotiations on the draft resolution, adding that, if attempts were made to adopt it in its existing form, he would ask for it to be put to the vote, and would vote against it. Ironically, the draft resolution, due to be circulated today, 28 February, had been meticulously composed and was the product of behind-the-scenes negotiations with Washington’s representatives aimed precisely at accommodating the super￾Power’s main requirements, despite the knowledge that those requirements would not have the majority support of the Member States of the United Nations. Throughout the months of this process, the United States of America and its allies have placed enormous pressure on many third-world Governments, aiming to break their resistance to this new conspiracy. The Cuban Mission to the United Nations warned of the danger of this ploy in a press release of 20 February 2006. Blackmail is the Bush Administration’s only “argument”. Its theories do not withstand debate. What kind of Human Rights Council is the United States of America trying to impose? • One with membership requirements and conditions of a kind which would keep out any country in the front line of resistance to the aggression and hegemony of global imperialism. The United States of America is trying to convince everyone that the Commission on Human Rights was discredited because it included countries such as Cuba, even though quite the opposite is true, as everyone knows: Washington and the members of the European Union destroyed the Commission’s credibility through politically motivated manoeuvring, including the unfair campaign against Cuba. We should remember that the United States was not elected to the Commission on Human Rights in 2001, in a protest vote by most of the world against its pressure and manipulation; • One with fewer than the 53 members of the Commission on Human Rights. The United States claims to be aiming for a more manageable body, in other words, a smaller entity in which United States pressure can be focused on fewer members,with greater impact and effect. In other words, it wants a Human Rights Council that it can manage more easily, one without countries which, like Cuba, call a spade a spade and defend the principles and dignity of peoples above all else; • One in which candidate countries are forced to have the support of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly in order to succeed. This is an attempt by the United States of America to ensure that, with the complicity and support of a clear minority consisting of its close allies and those who bend to its will, it has a de facto power of veto over candidates which impede its desire for control over the Council’s work. Imposing that requirement, which applies only to election to the principal organs of the United Nations — and the Human Rights Council is not a principal organ — would enable a minority of 64 States to bar any candidate from membership; • One with wide punitive powers and substantial ability to impose penalties on the countries of the South, running counter to the pursuit of international cooperation in the field of human rights which the Charter of the United Nations assigns to the institutions responsible for such matters. The United States of America and the European Union will continue within the new Human Rights Council their customary political manipulation against the peoples of the developing world. Not for nothing do they refuse even to consider establishing clear criteria, to apply equally to all, when presenting resolutions regarding individual countries; • One in which any member resisting the manoeuvring and pressure of the empire would be at permanent risk of having its rights suspended, thanks to the super-Power’s pride, bitterness and arrogance; • One which has close ties to the Security Council, an anti-democratic body on which the United States of America, as the sole super-Power, imposes its conditions; • One with no explicit mandate to give priority attention to implementing the right to development, a demand vital to most of humanity. One which cannot adopt effective decisions against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance. One which focuses on civil and political rights in the way Washington understands them and one which, moreover and among other things, is used to legitimize torture, a practice which Washington theorists and hawks have spent so much time justifying. Does the draft resolution put forward go against Washington’s interests? Quite the opposite. The draft enshrines the drop in membership of the main human-rights body of the United Nations from 53 to 47; it increases the minimum number of votes needed to elect a candidate to 96, and it retains the option to impose resolutions against the countries of the South without adhering to any condition or criterion. It also allows members of the Council to be suspended with the support of two thirds of those present and voting at a meeting of the General Assembly, without establishing a threshold; it opens up the possibility that countries of the South may in future face not only the permanent threat of being condemned through a resolution, but also of having their rights in the Council suspended; it gives the Council the ability to respond rapidly to so-called human-rights emergencies which, according to the self-appointed masters of the world, only happen in the South. That ability does not, however, apply to the serious, large-scale and sustained violations of human rights at the Guantánamo base detention centre, to the brutal torture at Abu Ghraib or to using secret Central Intelligence Agency flights to transport detainees for torture through democratic and civilized Europe; it enables special sessions of the Council to be called on the basis of the minority wish of one third of its members. Does the draft resolution put forward by the President of the General Assembly favour the interests of the developing countries, to the detriment of Washington’s desires? Absolutely not. Not one of the 28 paragraphs of the draft relates to concrete action to help overcome the current international order’s obstacles to guaranteeing human rights for all, as article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes. Not a single paragraph is entirely devoted to the right to development. The right to solidarity is entirely neglected. The draft resolution similarly fails to give peoples’ right to peace the universal recognition it deserves. The fundamental problem is not that the draft resolution put forward opposes, is incompatible with or simply fails to secure the interest in stability, credibility and legitimacy required by the scheme for global dominance established by the imperialist circles that hold power in the United States of America. The real aim of the final onslaught by the current United States Administration in the negotiations on the Human Rights Council is to translate into action, by means including the crudest blackmail, its desire and ability to impose its conditions on the ongoing reform and reshaping of the international system represented by the United Nations. The neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration have already begun a headlong rush to bring about the plan for world dominance contained in what is termed the Project for the New American Century. Washington did not care about placing its European Union allies and accomplices once again in the ridiculous position of subordinating themselves to, and mirroring the actions of, the super-Power. Despite having said publicly that they were preparing to force through with great haste a draft resolution composed to accommodate Washington’s unpopular demands and their own interests, which are just as spurious as those of their strict guardian, they hurriedly declared, as soon as Bolton’s threatening statements became public, that if the United States stuck to its position, the establishment of the Human Rights Council should be postponed. A number of European Union authorities have already stated that “it is not desirable to create a Council without the support of all the democracies of the world; therefore we have to try to attract the United States to our side”. The empire’s European allies must already be hard at work trying to force the rest of the world into further concessions to satisfy the Bush Administration’s thirst for dominance and pillage. Ultimately, their ideological and political interests coincide with those of Washington, which has worked to convince them that their aims could never be achieved in Geneva without United States support. In manipulating the universal interest in strengthening multilateralism, Washington, its allies and other Governments which are vulnerable to United States pressure are trying to continue to impose their conditions and force the rest of the world to back down from the vital task of defending the central principles of the international system. Multilateralism can only work on the basis of respect for the sovereign equality of States. A United Nations which allowed the super-Power to do as it wished in order to fulfil its desires for hegemony and its selfish interests would not be viable. Cuba has played an active role in the debate on the reform of the Commission on Human Rights in a spirit of constructiveness and total transparency. At each stage of the process, it has put forward a number of proposals, many supported by existing language from the World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in 1993, or from successive Commission on Human Rights or General Assembly resolutions. Cuba will continue its efforts to ensure that the aspects which were disregarded unfairly and against the will of most of the countries of the South are duly included in the draft resolution on which the General Assembly will be called upon to give its views. Such omissions seriously damage the chances of guaranteeing the establishment of a Human Rights Council which operates through genuine dialogue. Cuba has worked hard to prevent the serious problems which undermined the credibility of the Commission on Human Rights from being transferred to the Human Rights Council. It will not be an accomplice to the silent conclusion of a new, incipient, shady deal between Washington and its main Western allies against the interests of the peoples of the South. Cuba will keep up its principled condemnation of this new attack on the international system and the interests of the peoples of the South, and, as the circumstances demand, will act to defend justice, international law and much￾needed international cooperation in promoting and protecting all human rights for all peoples and individuals.

577066

United Nations E/2006/NGO/36 Economic and Social Council Distr.: General 16 May 2006 Original: English 06-35441 (E) 140606 *0635441* Substantive session of 2006 Geneva, 3-28 July 2006 Item 2 of the provisional agenda* Creating an environment at the national and international level, conducive to generating full and productive employment and decent work for all, and its impact on sustainable development Statement submitted by Jigyansu Tribal Research Centre, a non-governmental organization in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council The Secretary-General has received the following statement, which is being circulated in accordance with paragraphs 36 and 37 of Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31. * E/2006/100. Statement Jigyansu Tribal Research Centre (JTRC) has been reaching out since the seventies to marginalized and economically under privileged people, living in Rural Areas, Tribal Areas and remote Areas. Hence, its efforts in Socio-Economic Development in such areas have always included eradication of poverty and hunger, for the past three decades. Accordingly, JTRC has included the process of education (Formal and Non-Formal), Capacity Building and Training in income generation and Socio-Economic Initiatives, Skill Development and Career Education for Youth and Women; as well as creating linkages for Traditional Craftsmen, Capacitated Volunteers and other Employable and Self-Employable Youth, Women and Men in such remote Areas; with Financial Institutions, Marketing Infrastructure as well as Skilled Management of Small Self￾Employment Units, known as Mahila Mandals, Youth Forums, Self-Help Groups and Civil Society alternatives. JTRC has been working for the development and welfare of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and other Backward Classes and the Economically Marginalized; through its 11 branches and about 30 Project Offices in India in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh Jammu and Kashmir, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Delhi and the North Eastern Himalayan States of Assam, Arrunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Nagaland, Mizoram and Sikkim. Since its inception in 1979; JTRC has worked with 55 lakh ST/SC people and about 5 lakh children through its Research and Evaluation Division, Training and Capacity Building Division, Sustainable Development Division and Communication/Publication Division. JTRC has worked in a big way with Child Workers for the past two decades. The social inequality of child labour has continued as an aftermath of factors like colonization, Agricultural Economy with undefined land holding system resulting in higher number of landless workers, lack of developing base line economic structure for the uneducated and semi-educated masses living in the Rural, remote areas. Unequal distribution of resources and capital assets, redundant or non-functioning capacity building and training infrastructure; as well as absence of credit and marketing linkages in such countries. Working children, mainly come under the unorganized system of contract labour, free labour, low wages in the Agriculture sector, family business and land holdings as well as small business units in economically vulnerable remote areas. JTRC has taken this cause in a big way, by organizing Educational and Economic Rehabilitation Projects for child workers, street children, Rag-Picker Children and Bonded Child Labour through Non-Formal Education, Mainstreaming, and Support Service to avoid dropouts and skill development as well as career education. JTRC has also conducted regular dialogues through community programmes, Out Reach Area discussions, Seminars, Workshops and Conferences. Vision and Future Plan: JTRC would like to add alternative income generation, Entrepreneurship Development, Skill Development Technical Education etc. and a strong Employment/Self-Employment information and placement infrastructure to this effort.

497683

United Nations S/2003/648 Security Council Distr.: General 13 June 2003 Original: English 03-40021 (E) 190603 *0340021* Letter dated 11 June 2003 from the Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001) concerning counter-terrorism addressed to the President of the Security Council I refer to my letter of 7 March 2003 (S/2003/308) transmitting a supplementary report from Nigeria submitted to the Counter-Terrorism Committee pursuant to paragraph 6 of resolution 1373 (2001). The Counter-Terrorism Committee has considered the report carefully with the assistance of its experts and has written to the Permanent Representative of Nigeria to the United Nations to set out its preliminary comments. Nigeria has been requested to provide a response in the form of a third report by 8 September 2003. I should be grateful if you could arrange for the present letter to be circulated as a document of the Security Council. (Signed) Inocencio F. Arias Chairman Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001) concerning counter-terrorism

537930

UNITED NATIONS E Economic and Social Council Distr. GENERAL E/CN.4/2005/63 10 December 2004 Original: ENGLISH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Sixty-first session Items 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the provisional agenda RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS INTEGRATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND THE GENDER PERSPECTIVE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD SPECIFIC GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS INDIGENOUS ISSUES Written submission by the World Health Organization (WHO)* The World Health Organization welcomes the opportunity to provide written input to the Commission on Human Rights concerning WHO initiatives and activities of relevance to the agenda of the Commission’s sixty-first session. Given the number of relevant WHO activities, this document has selected examples of ongoing work of relevance to items 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Commission’s provisional agenda. * Reproduced in the annex as received, in the language of submission only. GE.04-16835 (E) 211204 Annex United Nations Commission on Human Rights Sixty-first session Written submission by theWorld Health Organization (WHO) Items 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the provisional agenda General Information.......................................................................................................4 The relationship between health and human rights....................................................4 WHO’s health and human rights work areas .............................................................4 Agenda item 6: Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination ............................................................................................................4 Agenda item 7: The right to development .....................................................................5 Agenda item 10: Economic, social and cultural rights ..................................................6 The right to health......................................................................................................6 Agenda item 12: Integration of the human rights of women and the gender perspective: ....................................................................................................................7 Agenda item 13: Rights of the child ..............................................................................9 Agenda item 14: Specific groups and individuals .......................................................10 a) Migrant workers...................................................................................................10 d) Other vulnerable groups and individuals.............................................................11 Persons with disabilities...........................................................................................11 HIV/AIDS ................................................................................................................13 Agenda item 15: Indigenous issues..............................................................................13 General Information The relationship between health and human rights The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being, as enshrined in WHO's constitution adopted over 50 years ago.1 WHO recognizes that there are complex linkages between health and human rights: • Violations or lack of attention to human rights can have health consequences; • Health policies and programmes can promote or violate human rights in the ways they are designed or implemented; • Vulnerability and the impact of ill health can be reduced by taking steps to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights. WHO’s health and human rights work areas WHO is actively strengthening its focus on human rights and has identified five broad areas of work for 2005-6, as follows: 1. Develop a WHO health and human rights strategy 2. Enhance the knowledge base of rights-based approaches to development and their application to health 3. Develop tools to integrate human rights in health development policies and programmes 4. Strengthen WHO's capacity to adopt a human rights-based approach in its work through policy development, research and training. 5. Advance the right to health in international law and international development processes through advocacy, input to UN mechanisms and development of indicators. Agenda item 6: Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination Since 1999, PAHO2 has been carrying out activities on the issue of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination3 at its Headquarters (HQ) and Representative Offices (PWRs). Work has mainly focused on the health of indigenous peoples and the Afro-descendants community, as part of the mandates arising from the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action following the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, August 2001. 1 Basic Documents, Forty-third Edition, Geneva, World Health Organization, 2001. The Constitution was adopted by the International Health Conference in 1946. 2 Regional Office for the Americas/Pan American Health Organization (AMRO/PAHO). 3 For issues specifically related to stigma, discrimination and HIV/AIDS, please refer to page 10. Core areas of work include: (1) To increase coordination with relevant stake-holders to follow-up on the Millennium Summit Declaration with the purpose of producing indicators that account for ethnic sensitivity corresponding to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). (2) To collaborate with the institutions in charge of obtaining statistical information and with ministries of health to introduce ethnic variables into the national statistics. (3) To collect and disseminate best practices in the field of information and organization of services. (4) To support ministries of health in designing policy plans and health programs which are sensitive to ethnicity. (5) To promote the introduction of an ethnic perspective in the health plans of the poverty reduction strategies (PRSP) in implementing countries. Agenda item 7: The right to development WHO is committed to the Millennium Declaration and work on the MDGs is an integral part of its core activities4 , which includes: 1. Design of indicators - WHO has worked with other organisations of the United Nations system and with the Department of Economic and Social Affairs to identify indicators associated with each health-related goal and target. 2. Reporting – WHO shares lead-agency responsibility with UNICEF for reporting on child mortality, maternal health, childhood nutritional status and immunization coverage, malaria-prevention measures and access to clean water; WHO and UNAIDS collaborate in the achievement of HIV-prevention targets. Country consultation for the validation of data on Development Goals will take place in partnership with UNICEF, UNDP, and UNFPA. WHO, as the lead authority for health content of the Development Goals within the United Nations system country team, will play an important role in the country consultative process and in ensuring that conflicting health data are not reported through parallel channels. All levels of the Organization will collaborate closely at each of the steps of the reporting process5 . 4 WHO’s commitment to the MDG was reaffirmed by resolution WHA55.19 (World Health Assembly Resolution ‘WHO’s contribution to achievement of the development goals of the United Nations Millennium Declaration’, May 2002). 5 ! Setting data quality standards: WHO is taking the lead in implementing a validation process for health information that guarantees five quality criteria for core health indicators5 . ! Developing measurement tools, maintaining a data-collection platform, and strengthening the capacity to generate and use the information. WHO builds on ongoing work to improve local capacities to conduct surveys and to analyse and use the data generated by the World Health Survey. ! Consulting with countries. Several country-consultation initiatives will merge in order to establish a consolidated WHO process for the validation of country–based data. ! Reviewing and validating the data. WHO will provide corporate support in the final analysis, inventory, cataloguing, validation and release of all WHO-generated data. WHO’s validation of health data for the MDG’s will be undertaken through global peer review. ! Disseminating Data. Data will be made available through WHO’s country web sites and the World Health Report. 3. Health and Poverty – The MDGs help to shape WHO’s work on health and poverty, which aims to identify pro-poor health interventions and to convince policy-makers of the benefits of investing in health, including reproductive health. WHO will provide support to countries for building capability to analyse data from all available surveys and to provide evidence on matters related to inequality and its determinants. Sound comparative data on the costs and benefits of interventions is needed for priority-setting and decision-making: at the microeconomic level, to estimate the costs of health care to individuals and families; at the macroeconomic level, to demonstrate the relationship between health interventions, poverty reduction and socioeconomic development. WHO also promotes the inclusion of the MDGs in the health component of relevant department frameworks and such instruments as Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. There is a growing recognition that achieving the MDG’s will require a significant increase in resources for health. WHO continues to be a strong and vocal advocate of additional resources for the health sector, and to provide estimates of the resource needs. Agenda item 10: Economic, social and cultural rights The right to health In recent years, WHO has strengthened its work on health and human rights. In 2005- 2006, WHO is focusing on the process of developing an Organization-wide health and human rights strategy , which will serve as a policy platform for WHO and ensure that human rights become further "institutionalized" in our everyday work. WHO is actively working to increase awareness and understanding of the scope, content and application of the right to health (shorthand for "the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health"). Training for WHO staff on health and human rights was initiated in 2002 and has continued in 2003 and 2004. Recently, consultations on health and human rights took place between WHO headquarters, regional and country offices. As part of basic building-blocks to develop a solid foundation for WHO’s emerging work on health and human rights, a global database on health and human rights actors has been developed and is now available on the website. WHO is also undertaking a global study to assess the extent that the right to health has been enshrined in national constitutions and other legislative frameworks, as well as developing an annotated bibliography on health and human rights. A workshop was convened in April 2004 to advance the process of identifying relevant right to health indicators. The importance of bringing multi-disciplinary actors in health and human rights together and of seeking common ground on how to monitor the right to health was emphasized, and both public health experts and human rights practitioners were invited. This work will continue with a series of consultations planned over the next couple of years. WHO regularly makes use of opportunities to articulate health as a human right and advance other health-related rights on the international human rights agenda, as well as the broader development agenda. This includes streamlining and co-ordinating WHO’s input to the UN human rights treaty bodies, collaborating with, and supporting the work of, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and participating in the annual sessions of the Commission and Sub-Commission on Human Rights. Agenda item 12: Integration of the human rights of women and the gender perspective Although a number of achievements have been made over the last 10 years since the Fourth World Conference on Women regarding women's status, such as the increasing recognition of women’s specific health needs, a number of challenges still remain. Although there is greater awareness of the barriers women face in accessing health services, women in many countries, particularly in rural areas, find it very difficult to obtain the health care they require. Gender inequality greatly affects the ability of women and girls around the world to realize their right to the highest attainable standard of mental and physical health. WHO is deeply concerned about the impact of gender equality on women's health and use of health care. Therefore, in addition to integrating gender issues into the various policies and programmes of the Organization, WHO is working on specific projects that address women's health and human rights. For example, WHO is developing a reference guide on CEDAW to assist WHO staff and national level partners in addressing women's health issues in the various CEDAW processes. WHO is also working on specific public health issues that have strong inequality dimensions and greatly affect the health and wellbeing of women and girls. Women and HIV/AIDS Gender based inequalities put women and girls at increased risk of acquiring HIV and also affect women's access to and interaction with health services, including those for HIV prevention and AIDS care. Therefore, the goal of WHO's work on gender and HIV/AIDS is to improve knowledge of and the response to the impact of gender inequality on HIV prevention, treatment, care and support by developing practical guidance on how HIV/AIDS policies and programmes can address and monitor these issues effectively. This will improve the coverage and quality of the diverse types of HIV/AIDS programming and best address the needs of both women and men as well as young girls and boys. In addition, as equity in access to HIV treatment is a critical element of the WHO/UNAIDS '3 by 5' initiative (that seeks to provide 3 million people with anti-retroviral therapy by 2005) WHO is working to ensure that gender inequality issues that can hinder access to AIDS treatment and care are addressed in the scaling up of AIDS services so that women have equitable access to ARVs and AIDS care services. Violence against Women Violence against women still affects millions of women around the world and adversely impacts both mental and physical health, as well women's productivity and ability to participate as active members of society. Therefore, WHO is working on a number of activities to address the different aspects of violence against women. The WHO Multi-country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence is the first study to gather data on the prevalence of violence against women and women's health that is comparable across countries. The results of the study will be used in countries and globally to generate policies and strategies to respond effectively to this important public health and human rights issue. In addition, the WHO is hosting a sexual violence research initiative (SVRI) supported by the Global Forum for Health Research and other partners. The SVRI aims to build an experienced and committed network of researchers, policy makers, activities and others to ensure that sexual violence is addressed from the perspective of different disciplines and with a multicultural outlook. The SVRI will enable approaches and interventions to combat sexual violence against women to be documented, evaluated and shared, research and evaluation methodologies to be developed and successful programmes to be implemented. WHO is also developing normative guidance on improving the health sector response to violence against women. For example, Guidelines for medico-legal care for victims of sexual violence are currently being pilot tested in several countries. These guidelines are designed to enable health workers to provide comprehensive care for the medical and psychological needs of survivors of sexual assault and to carry out appropriate forensic examinations. Guidelines are also being developed for management of sexual violence in emergency settings. The intersections between violence and HIV infection in women and girls are being increasingly documented and are cause for great concern. Therefore, WHO is working closely with UNAIDS, UNIFEM and many NGOs on this issue and, along with the Center for Women's Global Leadership (CWGL), is a co-convener for the Global Coalition on Women and AIDS' theme on Violence Against Women and its links to HIV/AIDS. Sexual and reproductive health and human rights There is increasing recognition that achievement of the MDGs, and of the ICPD and FWCW targets related to sexual and reproductive rights, requires governments to take both immediate and progressive steps to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of their population. Therefore, WHO is continuing to pay special attention to promoting and protecting human rights related to sexual and reproductive health. WHO develops and evaluates strategies and mechanisms for promoting gender equality and human rights in reproductive health research, programming and technical support and supports countries to ensure that reproductive health programmes and policies respect, protect and fulfil human rights and promote gender equality. In the area of technical assistance to countries, a human rights tool, Using human rights for maternal and newborn health: a tool for strengthening laws, policies and standards of care, has been designed to facilitate a multi-disciplinary analysis of the legal, policy and health system determinants of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity and the interventions to address them. Regarding regional and national capacity building, a training manual on gender and rights, Transforming health systems: gender and rights in reproductive health, has been developed and used in several regions to train health programme managers to enable them to develop policies and programmes that address gender inequalities and the respect, protection and fulfilment of human rights. The extensive work with the Human Rights Treaty Monitoring Bodies aims to ensure that sexual and reproductive health and rights issues are included in the Committees' concluding observations so that WHO Regional and Country Offices can use this mechanism for supporting country-based programmes. Agenda item 13: Rights of the child Currently, an estimated 10.8 million children under the age of five, and close to 1.5 million adolescents continue to die each year, mainly due to causes which are either preventable or treatable. Following the adoption of the Strategic directions for improving the health and development of children and adolescents, by the 56th World Health Assembly in May 2003, WHO has continued unabated to support countries in reducing infant and child mortality, and to address adolescent health and development. WHO has stepped up its efforts to increase political and financial commitment among its Member States and partners, and to provide technical assistance through policy development and accessible and cost-effective interventions. Taking a leadership role in defining and addressing child health inequities, WHO and the World Bank produced a background paper that spells out the approaches of both agencies in relation to child health and poverty. Together with a group of international partners, WHO worked to revitalize child survival efforts in order to assist governments in reaching the MDGs for reducing child mortality, and included the creation of the Global Partnership for Child Survival. Following the adoption in 2002 of the Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding by the World Health Assembly and the UNICEF Executive Board, implementation efforts have started in all Regions. Planning meetings at sub-regional or national level have led to the adoption of the WHO recommendation on the optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months, renewed interest in revitalising the BFHI and the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and subsequent relevant World Health Assembly resolutions, and accelerated training of health workers. Since 2002, WHO and partners have developed a set of tools on HIV and infant feeding for policy-makers, health care managers, researchers and health care providers. Work is under way on a set of indicators for complementary feeding to provide guidelines for local adaptation and planning, and guiding principles for non-breastfed children 6-24 months. A Planning Framework for supporting the implementation of the Global Strategy will be ready in 2005. Tens of thousands of children are killed by violent acts every year. Among children under 15, those aged zero to four are at highest risk of being murdered. For every child killed by violence, countless others are injured - even disabled - and suffer psychological consequences that can last well into adulthood. WHO is an active partner in the Secretary-General’s Study on Violence against Children and welcomes the Study as an opportunity to engage States in dialogue on violence prevention as a means of fulfilling children's rights. In collaboration with the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, WHO has been developing a framework for the prevention of child maltreatment. The framework takes a health and human rights approach and seeks to involve the health, legal and social sectors in promoting a systematic and evidence￾based approach in their responses to child maltreatment. The framework has undergone peer review and will be released in 2005. In 2004, WHO published a tool that will aide States’ efforts to prevent and respond to child maltreatment: Preventing violence, a guide to implementing the recommendations of the World report on violence and health. The document provides conceptual, policy and practical suggestions on how to implement each of the six country-level recommendations of the World report on violence and health. These recommendations target risk factors common to multiple types of violence, and accordingly their implementation should lead to reduced rates of child maltreatment. WHO has advanced its work in the area of child and adolescent rights, and is aiming at increasing its technical support to Member States in national and sub-national level rights-based programming for child and adolescent health. Training of government officials, health professionals and other partners continues at country level, and further workshops were held in Indonesia, Maldives and Romania. The workshops further advanced the understanding of how to develop tools and job-aids that assist in rights and equity-sensitive planning and programming within the legal and normative framework of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Tools are currently being finalized for rights-based programming for child health at district level, and for adolescent sexual and reproductive health. Early application of these tools will take place in early 2005. WHO also continued to provide technical input to the reporting process of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, and assisted the Committee on the development and adoption of a General Comment on Adolescent Health and Development in the Context of the CRC. Technical workshops on the reporting process and WHO assistance at country level are planned for 2005. Agenda item 14: Specific groups and individuals a) Migrant workers Approximately 175 million people - not including the increasing number of irregular or undocumented migrants- currently live temporarily or permanently outside their countries of origin. They leave their homes in search for a better life or to avoid persecution and discrimination. These people, often disadvantaged socially and economically at home, normally find themselves even more vulnerable in the countries in which they arrive. When undocumented, they often have no social safety nets and are unfamiliar with the operation of health and other social services in their new country of residence. Migrants often have to accept high-risk and low-paid jobs in order to survive and are, therefore, susceptible to many more health risks than are nationals. On the eve of the International Day of Migrants, WHO in conjunction with the International Labour Office (ILO), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the International Centre for Migration and Health (ICMH), the Ethical Globalization Initiative (EGI), December 18 and the Instituto Mario Negri (IMN) launched the publication “International Migration, Health and Human Rights”. This report draws attention to important human rights issues that migration poses for health policy-makers. These issues include: • The magnitude of, and reasons for, migration • Migrating health professionals or “the brain drain" • Forced migration and its health implications • Detaining and screening at the borders • Health and human rights issues of migrants once in the host country • The most vulnerable categories of migrants “International Migration, Health and Human Rights” also examines important topical developments, including emerging infectious diseases such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and international trade agreements, including WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). It recognizes the global economic benefits of liberalizing migration and urges that migration policies and programmes promote the health and human rights of migrants. d) Other vulnerable groups and individuals By addressing discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, religion and other internationally recognized grounds, vulnerability to ill health can be reduced. The grounds for non-discrimination in international human rights law have evolved and expanded over time and in light of changing realities. Physical and mental disability, and health status in general, including HIV/AIDS, have been explicitly incorporated in the list of proscribed grounds for non-discrimination in health in General Comment on the Right to Health adopted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in May 2000. Persons with disabilities WHO estimates that between 7 and 10% of the world population – almost 600 million people experience disability. Approximately 80% of people with disabilities live in developing countries, less than 5% of these persons have access to health or rehabilitation services. Women, immigrants, refugees and elderly suffer the most. Appropriate information related to various health issues including HIV-AIDS, is lacking to many disabled persons especially those who are blind or deaf. WHO in collaboration with other United Nations Organizations and its Specialized Agencies, has promoted Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR) for twenty five years. CBR has proven to be an effective strategy on the promotion of equal opportunities, participation and development for persons with disabilities in many WHO Member States. Following recommendations of the International Consultation to Review CBR, in Helsinki in May 2003, WHO convened on 1st and 2nd November 2004, a Meeting on the Development of Guidelines on CBR. Many stakeholders, NGOs, Disabled Peoples Organizations, researchers involved in CBR participated in this meeting. These Guidelines would strengthen CBR and greatly contribute to promote the rights of all people with disabilities. A “Joint Position Paper on Community Based Rehabilitation: a Strategy for Rehabilitation, Equalization of Opportunities, Poverty Reduction and Social Inclusion of People with Disabilities” (ILO-UNESCO-WHO), was launched during this meeting. The document is currently being translated into other languages. WHO continues its active participation on the process related to the “Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities". WHO has established a focal group for the " coordination of the work done by the Organization. The focal group also participates in meetings with other United Nations bodies based in Geneva, which is an informal reference group for interagency information sharing and collaboration. WHO is promoting the development and strengthening of rehabilitation services including medical rehabilitation as well as assistive technology in Member States to ensure the rights of all persons with disabilities to have access to those services. In this regard, in March 2004, WHO participated in the 11th World Congress of the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics , where it was recommended that the joint WHO and ISPO publication on "Developing Prosthetics and Orthotics training Guidelines for Developing countries" should be finalized. WHO has convened two informal meetings on Medical Rehabilitation as preparatory steps for the planned Expert Advisory Committee Meeting that will produce a technical report on the issue for WHO Member States. A document on Strengthening National Rehabilitation Services has been finalized. WHO is promoting the empowerment of persons with disabilities so that professionals would work in partnership with them and not only be seen as "prescribers". This project for "Strengthening self management activities for persons with disabilities", will promote equal rights and a better quality of life of persons with disabilities. It will be implemented in one country in each WHO region. It is presently being discussed in Tanzania, Jordan and El Salvador. In addition, WHO is addressing some of the issues raised in the Millennium Development Goals, in particular poverty alleviation which affect persons with disabilities. WHO Executive Board adopted a draft Resolution on "Disability, including prevention, management and rehabilitation", which urges Member States: To strengthen national programmes, policies and strategies for the implementation of the United Nations Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, to develop their knowledge base with a view to promoting the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities and ensure their full inclusion in society and to include a disability component in all health policies and programme. At the same time requests the Organization to support Member States, in collecting more reliable data on all relevant aspects, including cost-effectiveness of interventions for disability prevention, to organize a meeting of experts to review the health and rehabilitation requirements of persons with disabilities and to produce a World report on disability and rehabilitation based on the best available scientific evidence. As part of its mental health Global Action Programme (mhGAP), WHO is developing guidance material on mental health legislation. It will provide technical guidance on human rights and the development and implementation of mental health legislation. The manual is currently in draft form and has had two international reviews with over 100 national and international user, family, professional, governmental and non governmental organisations, ministry of health representatives and individual experts. WHO hosted an International Forum on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation in November 2003. One hundred and five participants from 56 countries attended. The event provided an opportunity for countries to gain technical knowledge on mental health and human rights and provided support and guidance in the development mental health legislation. WHO has also conducted a number of regional workshops and is providing intensive technical assistance to countries in the development and implementation of national legislative measures to better promote and protect the rights of people with mental disorders. HIV/AIDS By addressing discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender and other internationally recognized grounds, vulnerability to ill health can be reduced. This is particularly the case in the context of the HIV/AIDS, an epidemic in which fear, stigma, discrimination and violations of human rights remain major impediments to the prevention of HIV transmission and the provision of treatment, care and support for people living with HIV/AIDS. On the other hand, initiatives aimed at reducing HIV/AIDS-related stigma and discrimination and protecting the human rights of those vulnerable to infection are recognized as highly important components of any effective response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The cartoon “HIV/AIDS Stand Up for Human Rights" was launched in December 2003 and is designed to empower young people to promote human rights in relation to HIV/AIDS. It aims to raise awareness of the key linkages between HIV/AIDS and human rights and to combat the myths and taboos associated with HIV and AIDS. The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) has agreed to help stimulate awareness of human rights and HIV/AIDS by supporting the reprint of the cartoon and its distribution through national football associations. Events will be organized in five high burden countries - South Africa, Botswana, Uganda, Ghana and Zambia - in the coming months. The opportunity of these events will be used to promote education/awareness-raising among youth. Agenda item 15: Indigenous issues Resolution WHA 54.16, passed in 2001, requested the WHO Secretariat to outline a Global Strategy on the Health of Indigenous Peoples, with a focus on the needs in developing countries. This Global Strategy, prepared in close consultation with WHO’s Regional Offices, was presented to and adopted by the World Health Assembly in May 2002. The Strategy, which employs flexible terminology to facilitate the engagement of as wide a range of developing countries as possible, envisages a broad, multistakeholder approach, involving governments, WHO and other UN partners, NGOs, and local actors. WHO's work on indigenous peoples health is located within the team working on Health and Human rights, recognizing the interrelationship between the realization of human rights and the health of indigenous peoples. In collaboration with the Health Equity team, a data analysis is underway to consider health disparities among ethnic groups. A publication is planned that will highlight the health situation of marginalized ethnic population groups, including indigenous and tribal peoples, from a human rights perspective. WHO is proposing to establish a Commission on the social determinants of health. The Commission will assemble relevant evidence on the social factors that lead to widespread ill-health in disadvantaged communities. The Commission's overarching goal is to increase vulnerable people's chances to be healthy by promoting a core policy emphasis on the social determinants of health in countries, at WHO, and among global health actors. - - - - -

562936

United Nations A/C.2/60/L.52 General Assembly Distr.: Limited 13 December 2005 Original: English 05-62908 (E) 141205 *0562908* Sixtieth session Second Committee Agenda item 55 (a) Group of countries in special situations: Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries: high-level meeting on the midterm comprehensive global review of the implementation of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2001-2010 Programme budget implications of draft resolution A/C.2/60/L.32/Rev.1 Statement submitted by the Secretary-General in accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly I. Requests contained in the draft resolution 1. Under the terms of operative paragraph 5 of draft resolution A/C.2/60/L.32/Rev.1, the General Assembly would convene a high-level meeting on the midterm comprehensive global review of the implementation of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2001-2010 in New York on 19 and 20 September 2006, to be chaired by the President of the General Assembly. 2. Under the terms of operative paragraph 6 of the draft resolution, the General Assembly would convene a three-day preparatory meeting of experts during the sixtieth session of the General Assembly, preferably on 4, 5 and 6 September 2006, for the midterm comprehensive global review, to propose, as appropriate, measures to advance the process of the implementation of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2001-2010. 3. Under the terms of operative paragraph 12 of the draft resolution, the General Assembly would recognize the importance of the contribution of civil society actors in the preparatory process and, in this regard, would request the President of the General Assembly to organize, within existing resources, one-day informal interactive hearings in New York with representatives of non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations and the private sector, as an input to the midterm comprehensive global review. 4. Under the terms of operative paragraph 16 of the draft resolution, the General Assembly would request the Secretary-General to submit, in a timely manner, a comprehensive report for the midterm comprehensive global review. 5. Under the terms of operative paragraph 17 of the draft resolution, the General Assembly would reiterate the critical importance of the full and effective participation of the least developed countries in the midterm comprehensive review of the Programme of Action at the national, regional and global levels, and stress that adequate resources should be provided, and in this regard would request the Secretary-General to mobilize extrabudgetary resources to cover the cost of participation of two government representatives from each least developed country in the process of the high-level meeting on the midterm comprehensive global review. 6. Under the terms of operative paragraph 20 of the draft resolution, the General Assembly would request the Secretary-General to submit to it at its sixty-second session a report on the implementation of the resolution. II. Relationship of the draft resolution to the biennial programme plan and priorities for the biennium 2006-2007 and to the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007 7. The activities to be carried out relate to programme 1, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs and conference management; subprogramme 1, Least developed countries, of programme 8, Least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States; and subprogramme 4, Support services, of programme 24, Management and support services, of the biennial programme plan and priorities for the period 2006-2007. They fall under section 2, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs and conference management; section 10, Least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States; and section 28D, Office of Central Support Services, of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007. 8. Under section 10, Least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States, of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007, the outputs requested in operative paragraphs 16 and 20 of draft resolution A/C.2/60/L.32/Rev.1 would need to be added as follows: Paragraph 10.17 (a) (i) b Add “Comprehensive report on the midterm comprehensive global review (1); Report on the implementation of the resolution on the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries: high-level meeting on the midterm comprehensive global review of the implementation of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2001- 2010 (1)”. III. Activities by which the proposals will be implemented 9. Pursuant to operative paragraph 5 of draft resolution A/C.2/60/L.32/Rev.1, the high-level meeting on the midterm comprehensive global review of the implementation of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2001-2010 would be held for two days, on 19 and 20 September 2006, with two meetings per day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, and with interpretation services in all six languages. Documentation requirements for the high-level meeting are estimated at 77 pages of pre-session and 20 pages of post￾session to be issued in all six languages. No in-session documentation is foreseen. Verbatim records would be provided in all six languages if the meetings were considered plenary meetings of the General Assembly. 10. Pursuant to operative paragraph 6 of the draft resolution, the preparatory meeting of experts would consist of two working groups for three working days, preferably on 4, 5 and 6 September 2006, with four meetings per day, two in the morning and two in the afternoon, all with interpretation services in six languages. Documentation requirements for the meeting of experts are estimated at 25 pages of pre-session and 20 pages of post-session to be issued in all six languages. No in￾session documentation is foreseen. 11. Pursuant to operative paragraph 12 of the draft resolution, the informal interactive hearings would be held for one day, with two meetings, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, and with interpretation services in all six languages. Documentation requirements for the informal interactive hearings are estimated at 55 pages of pre-session and 2 pages of post-session to be issued in all six languages. No in-session documentation is foreseen. 12. It should be noted that the proposed dates of the high-level meeting, 19 and 20 September 2006, would overlap with the general debate of the General Assembly, which will start on 19 September 2006 (see A/INF/59/1) in accordance with Assembly resolution 57/301. Since the high-level meeting and the general debate of the General Assembly cannot be held at the same time, arrangements will have to be made to avoid such an overlap. Regarding the preferred dates of the preparatory meeting of experts (4-6 September 2006), in 2006, Labor Day falls on 4 September, which is a United Nations holiday; no meeting can be held on that day. Therefore, the three-day preparatory meeting of experts would have to be rescheduled. The exact dates for the informal interactive hearings will be determined in consultation between the substantive secretariat and the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management, subject to the availability of conference facilities and services. IV. Additional requirements for the biennium 2006-2007 13. The implementation of the requests contained in operative paragraphs 5, 6 and 12 of the draft resolution would entail requirements as detailed in the table. Additional regular budget requirements (United States dollars) 2006 (a) High-level meeting on the midterm comprehensive global review of the implementation of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2001-2010 Section 2. General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs and conference management Meeting servicing, interpretation and documentation 373 100 Section 28D. Office of Central Support Services Support services 10 400 Subtotal (a) 383 500 (b) Preparatory meeting of experts Section 2. General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs and conference management Meeting servicing, interpretation and documentation 223 200 Section 28D. Office of Central Support Services Support services 31 200 Subtotal (b) 254 400 (c) Informal interactive hearings Section 2. General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs and conference management Meeting servicing, interpretation and documentation 169 400 Section 28D. Office of Central Support Services Support services 5 200 Subtotal (c) 174 600 Grand total 812 500 14. Should the General Assembly adopt draft resolution A/C.2/60/L.32/Rev.1, the high-level meeting on the midterm comprehensive global review of the implementation of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2001-2010 and the preparatory meeting of experts would constitute an addition to the draft calendar of conferences and meetings of the United Nations for 2006 which has been submitted for approval by the General Assembly. However, should the high-level meeting be held as meetings of the General Assembly, no additional resources would be required, as conference services are provided for meetings of the General Assembly throughout the year. The informal interactive hearings would be held within existing resources already earmarked for meetings of the General Assembly on the condition that they are not held when the General Assembly is meeting, and the 75 pages of documentation would be processed as documents of the General Assembly. The preparatory meeting of experts, however, would need additional conference-servicing and support services resources. 15. The reports requested under operative paragraphs 16 and 20 of draft resolution A/C.2/60/L.32/Rev.1 would represent additions to the outputs proposed in the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007 for section 10, Least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States. Given the priority nature of these reports, the Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States stands ready to prepare the reports and will endeavour to do so within existing resources. 16. The implementation of operative paragraph 17 of the draft resolution is being understood as requiring the Secretary-General to mobilize extrabudgetary resources and would not require the use of any regular budget funds. The attention of the Committee is drawn to the provision of section VI of General Assembly resolution 45/248 B of 21 December 1990, in which the Assembly reaffirmed that the Fifth Committee was the appropriate Main Committee of the Assembly entrusted with responsibilities for administrative and budgetary matters; and reaffirmed also the role of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions. V. Contingency fund 17. It will be recalled that under the procedures established by the General Assembly in its resolutions 41/213 of 19 December 1986 and 42/211 of 21 December 1987, a contingency fund is established for each biennium to accommodate additional expenditure derived from legislative mandates not provided for in the programme budget. Under this procedure, if additional expenditure were proposed that exceeded the resources available from the contingency fund, the activities concerned would be implemented only through the redeployment of resources from low-priority areas or modification of existing activities. Otherwise, such additional activities would have to be deferred to a later biennium. VI. Conclusions 18. Should draft resolution A/C.2/60/L.32/Rev.1 be adopted by the General Assembly, and should the high-level meeting and the informal interactive hearings be held as meetings of the General Assembly, additional resources in the total amount of $223,200 would be required under section 2, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs and conference management, of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007, and additional resources in the total amount of $31,200 would be required under section 28D, Office of Central Support Services. No additional resources would be required under section 10, Least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States. 19. Should draft resolution A/C.2/60/L.32/Rev.1 be adopted by the General Assembly, and should the high-level meeting not be held as a meeting of the Assembly, additional resources in the total amount of $596,300 would be required under section 2, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs and conference management, of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007, and additional resources in the total amount of $41,600 would be required under section 28D, Office of Central Support Services. No additional resources would be required under section 10, Least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States. 20. The additional resource requirements referred to in paragraphs 18 and 19 above would represent a charge against the contingency fund and, as such, would require appropriations for the biennium 2006-2007 to be approved by the General Assembly at its sixtieth session.

425496

United Nations A/C.5/55/16 General Assembly Distr.: General 23 October 2000 Original: English 00-70369 (E) 231000 ````````` Fifty-fifth session Fifth Committee Agenda item 169 Scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of United Nations peacekeeping operations Note verbale dated 20 October 2000 from the Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Cambodia to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General The Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Cambodia presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and, with reference to its note verbale dated 5 October 2000, has the honour to request that the above￾mentioned note verbale be circulated as a document of the General Assembly, under agenda item 169, entitled “Scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of United Nations peacekeeping operations”. The Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Cambodia to the United Nations avails himself of this opportunity to renew to the Secretary-General of the United Nations the assurances of his highest consideration. New York, 20 October 2000 Annex to the note verbale dated 20 October 2000 from the Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Cambodia to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General The Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Cambodia presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to draw the latter’s attention to the necessity of relocating the Kingdom of Cambodia from group (c) to group (d) in the scheme for the apportionment of the costs of the United Nations peacekeeping operations. In this regard, the Kingdom of Cambodia requests that the matter be included for consideration under agenda item 169 entitled “Scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of United Nations peacekeeping operations”, at the earliest available opportunity. Since the introduction of the scheme for the apportionment of the costs of the United Nations peacekeeping operations with the adoption of General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII) of 18 December 1973, Cambodia has been placed in group (c). However, it is significant to point out that, as a result of three decades of wars, conflicts, unrest and economic crisis, Cambodia is now categorized as one of the least developed countries in the world, with an average per capita gross national product (GNP) of US$ 260 per annum (source: World Bank World Development Indicators Database 1999); Cambodia’s per capita GNP is lower than that of a number of countries placed in category (d). While the Kingdom of Cambodia has been consistently fulfilling its financial obligations to the United Nations, it also believes that the scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the peacekeeping operations should correctly reflect the current economic situation of the country, and the relocation of Cambodia from group (c) to group (d) will underline the seriousness of the United Nations in its attempts to be more transparent in its decision-making process to achieve the goal of overall reform. The Royal Government of Cambodia believes that, considering the above facts, its request will be regarded positively. The Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Cambodia to the United Nations avails himself of this opportunity to renew to the Secretary-General of the United Nations the assurances of his highest consideration. New York, 5 October 2000

477201

UNITED NATIONS Distr. GENERAL FCCC/SBI/2002/13 6 September 2002 Original: ENGLISH SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR IMPLEMENTATION Seventeenth session New Delhi, 23–29 October 2002 Item 9 (c) of the provisional agenda ARRANGEMENTS FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL MEETINGS EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE CONVENTION PROCESS Note by the secretariat* * This document has been submitted at this time because of the need to undertake extensive internal consultations. Summary At the sixteenth session of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), some Parties expressed concern about participation of observer organizations in intersessional workshops, as well as participation of observers in meetings of limited-membership bodies constituted under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. The SBI agreed to include this matter as an item on the agenda for its seventeenth session, and invited Parties to submit views on this matter. The views submitted by Parties are contained in document FCCC/SBI/2002/MISC.8. This note sets out current practice concerning participation of observer organizations in intersessional workshops, and participation of observers in meetings of limited-membership bodies constituted under the Convention and the Protocol. Options and proposals for enhancing participation are presented for consideration by the SBI. CONTENTS Paragraphs Page I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 – 3 3 A. Mandate.................................................................................. 1 3 B. Scope of the note .................................................................... 2 3 C. Possible action by the Subsidiary Body for Implementation 3 3 II. BACKGROUND................................................................................. 4 – 7 3 III. PARTICIPATION IN THE CONVENTION PROCESS.................... 8 – 38 4 A. Intersessional workshops........................................................ 10 – 17 5 B. Meetings of bodies constituted under the Convention........... 18 – 28 6 C. Meetings of bodies constituted under the Kyoto Protocol..... 29 – 38 8 I. INTRODUCTION A. Mandate 1. The Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), at its sixteenth session, took note of views expressed by some Parties concerning “Effective participation in the Convention process” and agreed to include this as an item on the agenda of its seventeenth session (see FCCC/SBI/2002/6, para. 5). The SBI also invited Parties to submit views on this matter; submissions from Parties are contained in document FCCC/SBI/2002/MISC.8. B. Scope of the note 2. This document aims to facilitate further discussion during the seventeenth session of the SBI (SBI 17) on participation in the Convention process. It sets out current practice concerning participation of observer organizations in intersessional workshops, and participation of observers in meetings of limited-membership bodies constituted under the Convention and the Protocol. Options and proposals for enhancing participation are presented for consideration. C. Possible action by the Subsidiary Body for Implementation 3. The SBI is invited to consider the information contained in this note, as well as the views submitted by Parties on this matter, and to provide further guidance to Parties and the secretariat in the form of conclusions concerning, as appropriate: (a) Participation of observer organizations in intersessional workshops; (b) Participation of observers in meetings of expert groups constituted under the Convention; (c) Participation of observers in meetings of the Executive Board of the clean development mechanism.1 II. BACKGROUND 4. Participation of observers is one of the fundamental features of the Convention process. The categories of observers that may participate in the sessions of the Conference of the Parties (COP) and the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol (COP/MOP)2 are: (a) The United Nations, its specialized agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as any State member thereof or observers thereto not Party to the Convention; (b) Any national or international, governmental or non-governmental body or agency, which is qualified in matters covered by the Convention or the Protocol, unless at least one third of the Parties present object. In addition, the Protocol provides that Parties to the Convention that are not Parties to the Protocol may participate as observers in the proceedings of any session of the COP/MOP.3 1 The provisional agenda for the eighth session of the Conference of the Parties includes an item entitled “Report of the executive board of the clean development mechanism” (see FCCC/CP/2002/1 and Add.1). The report of the Executive Board to the COP covers issues relating to participation of observers (see FCCC/CP/2002/3). 2 See Article 7, paragraph 6, of the Convention and Article 13, paragraph 8, of the Protocol. 3 See Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Protocol. 5. The Convention and the Protocol mandate the COP and the COP/MOP,respectively, to seek and utilize, where appropriate, the services and cooperation of, and information provided by, competent international organizations and intergovernmental and non-governmental bodies.4 In addition, the admission and participation of observers is subject to the rules of procedure. Rules 6 and 7 of the draft rules of procedure of the COP being applied5 provide that the observers mentioned in Article 7, paragraph 6, of the Convention may, upon the invitation of the President, participate, without the right to vote, in the proceedings of any session, unless at least one third of the Parties present at the session object. In the case of governmental or non-governmental bodies or agencies, participation is limited to matters of direct concern to them. 6. Furthermore, by decision 18/CP.4,6 the COP decided that presiding officers of Convention bodies may invite representatives of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to attend, as observers, any open-ended contact group established under the Convention process. To facilitate participation of observers: (a) Official documents of sessions of the COP and the subsidiary bodies are made publicly available during the session, and on the web site of the secretariat; (b) Notifications and provisional agendas of upcoming sessions are sent to Parties and observer organizations in advance of the sessions; (c) A broad range of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are regularly admitted to attend sessions of the COP and the subsidiary bodies, and make information available informally; (d) Observer States and organizations are permitted to make statements during plenary sessions; (e) Sessions of the COP are webcast and recent sessions are archived on the web site of the secretariat. 7. Participation in the Convention process is both flexible and, on the whole, inclusive. The COP enjoys the benefits of receiving inputs from a wide range of actors and, accordingly, is perceived as having a high level of legitimacy and credibility. III. PARTICIPATION IN THE CONVENTION PROCESS 8. During SBI 16, some Parties expressed concerns about, inter alia: (a) The right of Parties to take part as observers in meetings of limited-membership bodies established under the Convention and the Protocol, including to be physically present in the meeting rooms of these bodies; (b) The opportunities afforded observer organizations to participate as observers in meetings of limited-membership bodies and at intersessional workshops; (c) Timely notification of and availability of documentation for meetings of limited￾membership bodies and intersessional workshops to observers. 4 See Article 7, paragraph 2 (l), of the Convention and Article 13, paragraph 4 (i), of the Protocol. 5 See FCCC/CP/1996/2. 6 See FCCC/CP/1998/16/Add.1. 9. In considering how to promote transparency and effective participation in the process, Parties are invited to reflect on the nature of the UNFCCC process and its various components. Small informal workshops and expert groups have emerged as supplements to the large intergovernmental sessions. If participation in workshops and meetings of expert groups becomes too large, the utility of these groups could be put at risk and questions could be raised as to their raison-d'être. If open-ended participation is the objective, the sessions of the COP and the subsidiary bodies are available for that purpose. A. Intersessional workshops 1. Observer organizations 10. More than 500 IGOs and NGOs are currently admitted as observers to sessions of the COP and the subsidiary bodies, and these sessions have attracted more than 3,000 representatives of these organizations. They include environmental, business, trade union, faith and academic organizations, as well as local government and municipal authorities, parliamentarians and indigenous peoples’ organizations. 11. To facilitate the interaction between the secretariat and these observer organizations, an informal constituency system has been used recognizing, at present, four categories of observer organization: environmental groups, business and industry organizations, indigenous peoples’ organizations, and local government and municipal authorities. 2. Participation of observer organizations 12. Intersessional workshops are organized pursuant to decisions by the COP and the subsidiary bodies. Workshops provide an opportunity for the informal exchange of information among Parties, and help to build consensus on possible courses of action outside the more political environment of a formal session of the COP or the subsidiary bodies. They are not negotiating sessions and results are reported to the COP or the subsidiary bodies for consideration and action. 13. Participation in workshops is by invitation. Invitations are sent by the secretariat, on behalf of the chairs of the subsidiary bodies, to representatives of Parties, experts or resource persons, and observer organizations. Invitations to observer organizations are issued to focal points of the constituencies, who in turn inform their respective constituencies. Each constituency then carries out a selection process to identify participants for the workshops. These procedures have generally worked in practice and individual concerns have been addressed by the secretariat as they arise. 14. Informal reports of some workshops have been made publicly available by independent reporting agencies which have been invited to attend these workshops. 3. Options for enhancing participation 15. Some Parties have expressed concern that opportunities for participation by observer organizations in intersessional workshops are limited. When addressing this concern, it must be borne in mind that each workshop is different in purpose, interest and available resources, and the Chair of the subsidiary body is responsible for ensuring that the workshop is conducted in an efficient manner to meet its objectives. The need for efficiency and effectiveness of workshops implies that the number of participants must be limited. 16. Options available to address this concern include: (a) Requesting the secretariat to improve its use of the constituency system for workshop nominations to ensure that the system is more inclusive and transparent, recognizing that the secretariat is not in a position to select observer organizations to participate in workshops; (b) Requesting the secretariat to publish on its web site the procedures for the participation of observer organizations in workshops; (c) Requesting the chairs of the subsidiary bodies to review the number of invitations sent to observers. Care would, however, be needed to ensure that an appropriate balance is maintained between Parties and observers; (d) Requesting the secretariat to arrange for independent reporting agencies to provide summary reports on workshops which could be speedily made available on the web site of the secretariat. (This would cost US$ 8,000 for a two-day workshop in Bonn. Funds for this would need to be identified.) 17. A further concern relates to the timely issuance of notifications and availability of documentation for workshops. The increasing difficulties in securing funding for the growing number of workshops have resulted in delays in confirming whether a workshop will actually be held, and in issuing the notification and necessary documentation. To address this concern, the secretariat would publish, on its web site, the notification and documentation for each workshop, as soon as the workshop is confirmed and the documentation is available. B. Meetings of bodies constituted under the Convention 1. Expert groups 18. The COP has established a number of expert groups under the Convention. These expert groups are limited in membership and duration, with agreed mandates, and their purpose is to provide advice and make recommendations on specific issues to Parties without being vested with decision-making authority. The expert groups are: (a) The Consultative Group of Experts on National Communications from Parties, not included in Annex I to the Convention (CGE); (b) The Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT); (c) The Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG). 19. The 24-member CGE was established at COP 5 and its mandate was extended at COP 7.7 Its objective is to improve the preparation of national communications by Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention. It is mandated, inter alia, to exchange relevant information and experience in order to identify difficulties encountered in the preparation of national communications and the application of related methodologies and guidelines. Reports of the meetings of the CGE are submitted to the SBI for consideration and action. 7 See decisions 8/CP.5 (FCCC/CP/1999/6/Add.1) and 31/CP.7 (FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.4). The mandate and terms of reference of the CGE will be reviewed at COP 8. 20. The 20-member EGTT was established at COP 7.8 Its objective is to enhance the implementation of Article 4, paragraph 5, of the Convention, by analysing and identifying ways to facilitate and advance technology transfer. The EGTT submits its reports to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) for consideration and action. 21. The 12-member LEG was also established at COP 7.9 Its objective is to provide advice on the preparation and implementation strategy for national adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs) developed by least developed countries (LDCs). It is mandated, inter alia, to provide technical advice on the identification of relevant data and information, on capacity-building needs for LDCs, and on mainstreaming NAPAs into development planning. Reports of the meetings of the LEG are submitted to the SBI for consideration and action. 2. Participation of observers 22. The mandates of the expert groups do not address participation of observers in meetings, and do not request that the expert groups develop their own rules of procedure. The groups have thus far considered themselves to be limited-membership bodies that are normally closed to observers. 23. The terms of reference of the LEG allow the group to “draw upon additional expertise as deemed necessary.” The work programme requires the Chair of the LEG to approve proposals for inviting additional experts, in consultation with LEG members. However, such additional expertise is to be used judiciously, with clear terms of reference and on an ad hoc basis. The use of such additional experts effectively allows input by observers. 24. Exceptionally, during the preparatory meeting of the EGTT, held in Seoul in April 2002, representatives of Parties were allowed to attend as observers. This decision was taken because the meeting was held in conjunction with two workshops organized by the secretariat. However, it was taken expressly on a one-time basis and was not designed to set a precedent. Also, at its first meeting held in conjunction with SBI 16, the EGTT invited two additional representatives of IGOs to serve as “resource persons.” 3. Options for enhancing participation 25. Some Parties have expressed concern about the lack of opportunity for observers to participate in meetings of experts groups, including to be physically present in the meeting rooms. Participation of observers in meetings of expert groups would raise two issues. First, expert groups should be able to carry out their work in an efficient and business-like atmosphere; open-ended participation by observers could affect this working environment. Second, the fact that not all Parties or observer organizations have the capacity to send observers to meetings would affect the balance of participation. 26. The COP has not mandated the expert groups to develop their own rules of procedure. This raises the question as to whether and/or how the draft rules of procedure of the COP being applied should be applied by expert groups. Parties may wish to consider further whether the rules of procedure were intended to apply to limited-membership bodies or only to open-ended bodies or “working groups” as defined by rule 2 of the draft rules. In this context, particular consideration could be given to the authority and responsibility of presiding officers for the conduct of meetings, including issues of participation. 8 See decision 4/CP.7 (FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1). The mandate of the EGTT runs to COP 12. 9 See decision 29/CP.7 (FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.4). The mandate of the LEG runs to COP 9. 27. Among the options for facilitating participation, while keepingexpert group meetings closed, are: (a) To request the chairs of the expert groups, drawing on the advice of the members, to consider options for improving participation of observers; (b) To invite the expert groups to periodically convene informal open meeting with observers; (c) To invite Parties and observer organizations to submit comments to the expert groups on particular items being addressed by the expert group. These views would be submitted to the secretariat, which would forward them to members of expert group. These views could also be included on the web site of the secretariat but would not be published as official UNFCCC documents; (d) To request that non-confidential documentation of the meetings is available on the web site of the secretariat; (e) To invite the expert groups to explore options for webcasting all or parts of the meetings and assess the implications. The cost of webcasting a two-day meeting of a constituted body ranges from US$ 4,500 to 7,000 for a meeting held in Bonn, and from US$ 8,500 to 11,000 for a meeting held away from Bonn (including costs for staff travel, rental of necessary equipment and Internet services, depending on the venue). No budget currently exists for this purpose. 28. If Parties consider that it would be useful for meetings of expert groups to be open so that observers could be physically present, then guidance will be needed on the modalities for observer participation and on how to ensure broad geographic and regional representation, recognizing that no resources are currently available for this purpose. In this regard: (a) Invitations to participate as observers could be sent to representatives of Parties and focal points of constituencies of observer organizations (the cost for participation of a representative to a two￾day meeting of a constituted body could be up to US$ 4,000, for which no funding is currently available); (b) In cases where there is a need to limit numbers, these invitations could be issued in consultation with the relevant groups; (c) The chairs of the expert groups should retain the discretion to close particular meetings to observers in cases where confidential matters need to be discussed or when the group decides that this would be more effective. C. Meetings of bodies constituted under the Kyoto Protocol 1. Constituted bodies 29. The Protocol provides for the establishment of a number of bodies to carry out specific activities. As elaborated in the Marrakesh Accords,10 these bodies have specific mandates, with decision-making functions, and membership is limited. They include: (a) The Compliance Committee; (b) The Executive Board of the clean development mechanism (CDM); (c) The Article 6 Supervisory Committee. 10 See FCCC/CP/2002/13/Add.1–4. 30. Of these bodies, the Executive Board of the CDM is now operational and, to date, has held five meetings. Some Parties have expressed concern about the participation of observers in the meetings of the Executive Board. In addition, some Parties have raised the issue of potential implications of the entry into force of the Protocol for participation as observers by Parties to the Convention that are not Parties to the Protocol. The issues below focus on the Executive Board of the CDM, but it should be borne in mind that these issues will also affect the other bodies constituted under the Protocol. 2. Participation of observers in meetings of the Executive Board of the clean development mechanism 31. The Protocol states that the CDM shall be subject to the authority and guidance of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol (COP/MOP) and supervised by the Executive Board.11 COP 7 brought the Executive Board (comprising 10 members and 10 alternates) into operation to facilitate a prompt start of the CDM. The mandate of the Executive Board specifies that it should, inter alia, make recommendations to the COP/MOP on further modalities and procedures for the CDM and the designation of operational entities, and supervise the observance of applicable modalities and procedures. The Executive Board is also responsible for the accreditation of operational entities. Pending entry into force of the Protocol, the COP has assumed the responsibilities of the COP/MOP. The annual reports of the Executive Board are submitted to the COP for review. 32. The annex to decision 17/CP.7 states that meetings of the Executive Board “shall be open to attendance, as observers, by all Parties and by all UNFCCC accredited observers and stakeholders, except where otherwise decided by the Executive Board.”12 Detailed information on the facilitation of attendance by observers is contained in the report of the Executive Board of the CDM to the COP at its eighth session.13 33. To ensure that the meetings of the Executive Board are conducted efficiently and in a business￾like atmosphere and, at the same time, to facilitate participation of observers: (a) Meetings of the Executive Board are webcast via the web site of the secretariat; (b) Facilities are provided for observers to watch the proceedings via closed circuit television (CCTV) in a room located next to the meeting room; (c) Documentation for the meetings of the Executive Board is available on the web site of the secretariat; (d) Observers may, upon invitation by the Executive Board, make presentations relating to matters under consideration by the Board; (e) Parties, and UNFCCC observer organizations and stakeholders can provide comments on how a proposed activity fulfils the validation requirements; (f) Public comments and input are sought on some matters addressed by the Executive Board. 11 See Article 12, paragraph 4, of the Protocol. 12 See decision 17/CP.7, annex, paragraph 16 (FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2). 13 See FCCC/CP/2002/3. 3. Options for enhancing participation in meetings of the Executive Board of the clean development mechanism 34. Two concerns have been raised about observer participation in meetings of the CDM Executive Board. The first is whether the current draft rules of procedure of the Executive Board of the CDM are fully consistent with the draft rules of procedure being applied by the COP. Recognizing the distinct character of the CDM, decision 17/CP.7 mandates the executive board to develop its own rules of procedure. 35. A second concern expressed by some Parties is whether electronic broadcasting (through webcast and CCTV) of meetings of the Executive Board provides sufficient opportunity for observer attendance. When considering this matter, Parties should consider how to ensure that the CDM can operate efficiently in taking business-like decisions, while ensuring transparency and providing opportunity for effective input from observers in decision-making. In this regard, the modalities and procedures for obtaining inputs from observers and the public, contained in the annex to decision 17/CP.7, provide a variety of options for participation. A further consideration is the desirability to provide the Executive Board with sufficient flexibility to tailor participation to specific circumstances. 36. In considering options for enhancing participation, the Executive Board could be requested to: (a) Clarify the circumstances and modalities under which observers may be invited to be physically present in the room where the Executive Board is meeting, especially when matters of particular interest to the observer is being discussed; (b) Periodically review the practice of placing a limit of 50 participants who can view the proceedings on CCTV, based on experience; (c) Invite the Chair to brief observers at the end of each meeting; (d) Periodically convene informal open meetings with observers; (e) Consider convening meetings at venues that would allow greater attendance by representatives of Parties. Holding meetings in, for example, Geneva or New York, would allow Parties to send representatives from their missions to the United Nations as observers. Convening meetings away from Bonn would, however, incur additional travel and administrative costs for the budget of the CDM, which could range from US$ 30,000 to 40,000 per meeting (including costs for staff travel, rental of necessary equipment, Internet services and rental of meeting rooms, depending on the venue). 37. If Parties consider that it would be useful for observers to be physically present in the meeting rooms of the Executive Board, then guidance will be needed on the modalities for observer participation and on how to ensure broad geographic and regional representation, recognizing that no resources are currently available for this purpose. 38. The COP is expected, at its eighth session, to consider the report of the Executive Board of the CDM, which includes issues relating to participation by observers.14 Parties may wish to discuss options for enhancing participation in this context. ----- 14 See FCCC/CP/2002/1 and Add.1, paragraphs 77–81.

520400

United Nations S/2004/330 Security Council Distr.: General 28 April 2004 Original: English 04-33055(E) 290404 *0433055* Draft resolution The Security Council, Recalling all its previous resolutions on Western Sahara, and reaffirming, in particular, resolution 1495 (2003) of 31 July 2003, Reaffirming its commitment to assist the parties to achieve a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution, which will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara in the context of arrangements consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, and noting the role and responsibilities of the parties in this respect, Having considered the report of the Secretary-General of 23 April 2004 (S/2004/325), 1. Reaffirms its support for the Peace Plan for Self-Determination of the People of Western Sahara as an optimum political solution on the basis of agreement between the two parties; 2. Reaffirms also its strong support for the efforts of the Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy in order to achieve a mutually acceptable political solution to the dispute over Western Sahara; 3. Calls upon all the parties and the States of the region to cooperate fully with the Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy; 4. Decides to extend the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) until 31 October 2004; 5. Requests that the Secretary-General provide a report on the situation before the end of the present mandate and requests the Secretary-General to include in this report an evaluation of the mission size necessary for MINURSO to carry out its mandated tasks, with a view towards its possible reduction; 6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

496879

United Nations A/58/79 General Assembly Distr.: General 15 May 2003 Original: English 03-36011 (E) 100603 *0336011* Fifty-eighth session Item 108 of the preliminary list* Social development, including questions relating to the world social situation and to youth, ageing, disabled persons and the family World Youth Report 2003 Note by the Secretary-General 1. In its resolution 56/117 of 19 December 2001, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to present a comprehensive report on the issue of policies and programmes involving youth with concrete and action-oriented recommendations, to the Commission for Social Development at its forty-first session. In the same resolution, the Assembly invited the Secretary-General to conduct a thorough review of and provide recommendations on the World Youth Forum’s structure, organization, participation, including to ensure that it is fully representative of all geographical regions and of a diversity of views, and processes, taking into account the views of Member States and youth organizations, and, in that context, to include that matter in his report to the Assembly at its fifty-eighth session, through the Commission at its forty-first session. 2. The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit the report requested (E/CN.5/2003/4)1 to the General Assembly. * A/58/50/Rev.1 and Corr.1. 1 Document E/CN.5/2003/4 has been distributed separately.

518132

General Assembly Distr.: Limited 23 September 2003 Original: English V.03-88218 (E) *0388218* Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Scientific and Technical Subcommittee Forty-first session Vienna, 16-27 February 2004 Use of nuclear power sources in outer space Possible organizational plans for potential co-sponsorship of an effort to develop an international space nuclear power source technical safety standard and potential advice of the International Atomic Energy Agency to the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee in the preparation of such a standard Note by the Secretariat 1. At its forty-sixth session, the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space noted that the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee at its fortieth session, in 2003, further to the deliberations of its Working Group on the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space, had adopted a new multi-year work plan on the use of nuclear power sources in outer space, covering the period 2003-2006. The work plan was designed to develop an international technically based framework of goals and recommendations for the safety of nuclear power source applications in outer space, as contained in the report of the Subcommittee (A/AC.105/804, annex III). 2. In accordance with item (f) of the multi-year work plan, the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, at its fortieth session, requested the Office for Outer Space Affairs and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) jointly to prepare, by September 2003, possible organizational plans providing for (a) potential co￾sponsorship of an effort to develop an international space nuclear power sources technical safety standard; and (b) potential IAEA advice to the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee in the preparation of such a standard. 3. Pursuant to that request, the paper contained in the annex to the present note was prepared by the Secretariat and IAEA. The paper takes into account the progress made during the intersessional informal discussions of the Working Group on the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space, held in Vienna on 10 June 2003. Annex Possible organizational plans for potential co-sponsorship of an effort to develop an international space nuclear power source technical safety standard and potential advice of the International Atomic Energy Agency to the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee in the preparation of such a standard Paper prepared by the Secretariat in cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency I. Introduction 1. The possible organizational plans presented below incorporate the main points set out in the discussion papers prepared by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Office for Outer Space Affairs for informal discussions held on 10 June 2003 and the relevant comments made during those discussions. Based on the plans, the Working Group on the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space intends to prepare an additional working paper containing draft recommendations that will serve as a guide to the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee at its session in 2004 towards making, if appropriate, a preliminary decision on whether to recommend co-sponsorship with IAEA in an effort to develop a technical standard starting in 2006.1 2. During the course of the informal discussions, two potential courses of action, as referred to in the work plan, were considered: (a) potential co-sponsorship of an effort to develop an international space nuclear power source technical safety standard; and (b) potential IAEA advice to the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee in the preparation of such a standard. In addition, a third potential course of action was identified, which is presented below as option 2. The Working Group on the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space also considered but discarded a fourth option, namely to take no further action. 3. The three options are not mutually exclusive. For example, option 2 or 3 could be adopted as initial actions aimed at building consensus, while retaining the possibility of pursuing option 1 in the future. Option 2 in particular seems unlikely to be a stand-alone option, but rather a step towards one of the other options. II. Possible organizational plans under the framework of cooperation between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Office for Outer Space Affairs Option 1: initiate a joint programme of work with IAEA to develop a safety standard for nuclear power sources in outer space, using IAEA’s safety standard development process with appropriate involvement of experts from the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and its Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, taking into consideration the reporting mechanisms and procedures of IAEA and the Committee. 4. IAEA, in cooperation with the Office for Outer Space Affairs, has prepared a paper, attached to the present note as appendix I, that provides a summary of the main features of the IAEA process and indicates suggested procedures for the involvement of experts from the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in the various stages of the process. If the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee decides to pursue this option, a request (possibly from the Subcommittee) to IAEA to initiate joint work on a safety standard could be accommodated in IAEA’s 2006-2007 programme. Option 2: organize, jointly with IAEA, a workshop/technical meeting, possibly in the second half of 2004, to discuss the scope and general attributes of a potential safety standard for nuclear power sources in outer space. 5. The basis for discussions would be two or more papers prepared in advance: one or more drafted by interested members of the Working Group on the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space from a “space community” perspective; one drafted by IAEA experts, from a “standard setters” perspective. The aim would be to improve each set of experts’ understanding of the other set’s perspectives and to move towards a shared vision of the scope and general attributes of a potential safety standard. The discussions should take into account the preliminary attributes of an international technically based framework of goals and recommendations for the safety of planned and foreseeable nuclear power source applications in outer space identified by the Working Group on the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space (see A/AC.105/804, annex IV, para. 8). If such a workshop/technical meeting were agreed to, it would need to be added to the appropriate year of the work plan of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee and the work plan would have to be adjusted accordingly. The results of the workshop/technical meeting would be reported to the next session of the Subcommittee. 6. The workshop/technical meeting could be held in Vienna, at the Vienna International Centre. IAEA would be able to organize and provide facilities for the meeting and the Office for Outer Space Affairs could consider the possibility of providing interpretation, subject to resources being available. Proposed terms of reference for such a workshop/technical meeting are set out in appendix II to the present paper. Option 3: promote work by interested members of the Working Group on the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space to develop common standards on a multilateral basis, for consideration by the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, with a view to the Subcommittee requesting IAEA to undertake a peer review of the draft standards. 7. The organizational plan for this option would be relatively straightforward: interested member States would make the necessary arrangements to prepare draft common standards for consideration by the Subcommittee, possibly at its forty￾second session, in 2005. Any request from the Subcommittee to IAEA for peer review could be treated by IAEA as an ad hoc request to provide for the application of its safety standards. Such requests are normally accommodated within its regular programme (as existing financial resources permit) or, if specific additional resources were made available by interested States, could be carried out as an extrabudgetary task. Appendix I Potential co-sponsorship of an effort to develop an international space nuclear power source technical safety standard: a brief description of International Atomic Energy Agency procedures and preliminary suggestions for cooperation with the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Spacea Paper prepared by the International Atomic Energy Agency in cooperation with the Office for Outer Space Affairsb I. The International Atomic Energy Agency safety standards 1. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Statute authorizes the Agency “to establish or adopt, in consultation and, where appropriate, in collaboration with the competent organs of the United Nations and with the specialized agencies concerned, standards of safety for protection of health and minimization of danger to life and property”. 2. IAEA’s safety standards are binding on the Agency for its own activities and for Agency-assisted activities in member States, but are not binding on its member States for their own activities, although member States may choose to incorporate or adapt them in their own legislation. 3. Safety standards fall into three categories: “safety fundamentals” set out the basic objectives, concepts and principles for safety; “safety requirements” specify requirements that are essential to satisfy the basic safety principles (known as “shall” statements); and “safety guides” recommend more detailed measures to comply with the safety requirements (known as “should” statements). II. Preparation and review process for International Atomic Energy Agency safety standards 4. The preparation and review process for safety standards involves four committees of experts nominated by IAEA member States and appointed by the Director General, the Nuclear Safety Standards Advisory Committee (NUSSC) for nuclear installation safety, the Radiation Safety Standards Committee (RASSC)c for radiation source safety, the Waste Safety Standards Committee (WASSC) for radioactive waste safety and the Transport Safety Standards Committee (TRANSSC) for safety of transport of radioactive material. The committees are overseen by a commission of senior officials from member States with large nuclear programmes. 5. In response to a request or identified need, the Agency secretariat drafts an outline and work plan (called a “document preparation profile”) describing the proposed standard. The document must be approved by the relevant committee(s) and commission for work to proceed. 6. Drafting of the standard is usually done by small groups of consultants,d assisted by the Agency Secretariat. When the draft is sufficiently advanced, it is reviewed by the relevant committee(s). 7. When agreed by the committee(s), the draft is distributed to all IAEA member States for comment. Comments are incorporated by the secretariat, with the assistance of consultants when necessary, and the draft is returned to the committee(s). 8. When the committee(s) have endorsed the draft, it is reviewed by the commission. When approved by the commission (and an internal review committee), safety guides can be published. Safety requirements and safety fundamentals must first be approved by the Board of Governors. 9. The whole process to publication typically takes about three years. III. Initiating the safety standards process 10. Although IAEA has the authority to initiate work on safety standards, the best basis for the Agency to proceed would be a formal request from the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space or its Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, whichever is appropriate. A request delivered during 2004 could be taken formally into account in preparing IAEA’s programme for 2006-2007. Depending on other priorities, some earlier work might be accommodated within the general safety standards programme. Since the level of participation by co-sponsoring organizations in the preparation and review process varies, it would be advisable to indicate in the request the degree and type of involvement by the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space that is foreseen. In the event that the request were to encompass the development of a safety standard, the request should indicate: (a) The scope of the standards envisaged; (b) The “level” of standards, i.e. whether they would be considered basic principles, requirements/obligations (“shall” statements) or guidance/recom￾mendations (“should” statements); (c) The intended relationship to the existing Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space. The task of developing new standards would be simplified considerably if there was flexibility to deviate from the existing Principles if necessary and IAEA would strongly recommend that this flexibility be allowed. If the new standards are intended to complement, rather than replace or be incorporated into, the Principles, it would also be useful to have some indication of the extent to which comments on the Principles from IAEA would be welcomed and the mechanisms for providing such comment. 11. Since a decision to request IAEA to develop safety standards would be a policy decision, the request should come from an intergovernmental body (rather than the Office for Outer Space Affairs). In that connection, the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee’s work plan for developing an international technically based framework of goals and recommendations for the safety of nuclear power source applications in outer space (A/AC.105/804, annex III) calls for the Subcommittee in 2004, if appropriate, to “make a preliminary decision on whether to recommend co-sponsorship with IAEA of a technical standard development effort starting in 2006”. It also notes that such a preliminary decision would allow for the inclusion of any necessary provisions in the IAEA programme and budget for the biennium 2006-2007. 12. The preliminary decision would then be considered for endorsement at the forty-seventh session of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, in June 2004, and then by the United Nations General Assembly later in the year, probably in December. Following endorsement by the General Assembly, the decision could be confirmed to IAEA in late 2004. IV. Member States 13. IAEA has 136 member States; the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space has 65. The only member State of the Committee that is not also an IAEA member State is Chad. If the Committee were to initiate a technical standard development with IAEA in 2006, then when IAEA invited its member States to provide comments on draft safety standards, the request could also be forwarded by the Office for Outer Space Affairs to States members of the Committee via a note verbale. Although for the most part the invitations from IAEA and the Office for Outer Space Affairs would be going to the same Permanent Missions, it is possible that the Missions might channel the two invitations to different experts. V. Languages 14. In recent years, IAEA has typically had about 30-40 safety standards at various stages of development at any one time, and typically held about 30-40 drafting meetings per year to work on those standards. For reasons of efficiency, therefore, IAEA standards are developed in English and translated only after approval by the Commission. Meetings to draft and review safety standards are conducted in English and draft standards exist only in English during development.e If this is unacceptable to participants in the process from the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, special arrangements (and resources) would be needed for interpretation and/or translation; however, neither IAEA nor the Office for Outer Space Affairs has a budget to provide interpretation during IAEA meetings. One possibility would be for countries needing interpretation during an IAEA meeting to bring an interpreter to the meeting themselves. Another possibility could be that some member States might volunteer to cover the interpretation costs. VI. Preparation and approval 15. IAEA’s procedures for review and approval of safety standards are described above. One question regarding any proposed standard on nuclear power sources in outer space would be which of the safety standards committees to consult. Consideration needs to be given to the points in IAEA’s process at which the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space would wish to conduct its own review and approval procedures and the appropriate bodies to involve. Some or all of the following mechanisms could be used to allow interaction between the Committee and IAEA: (a) IAEA might wish to invite some experts involved with or recommended by the Working Group on the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space to participate in the IAEA group of consultants; (b) IAEA could make a presentation and/or submit a short written report (to be distributed in the six official languages) to the annual session of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee on the progress in the development of the standards; (c) The Working Group on the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space could carry out a regular review of the latest draft of the standards, both during regular meetings in connection with Scientific and Technical Subcommittee sessions, and possibly during intersessional meetings; (d) Although both IAEA and the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space would review the standards from the perspective of its own area of expertise, it would be desirable to have some exchange between them; for example, representatives of the Office for Outer Space Affairs or the Working Group on the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space might participate in discussions in the relevant IAEA committee(s) to assist the safety specialists in understanding the outer space context. To this end, the Working Group could be represented, possibly by its Chairman and/or other member(s), during the discussion of draft standards by the IAEA committees. This would provide a reciprocal arrangement to the IAEA’s representation at meetings of the Working Group and the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee. 16. In order for IAEA and the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to develop joint standards, it would be necessary to consider how to ensure that the two bodies approve the same set of standards. If the second body to approve the standards were to introduce changes at the final adoption stage, the revised standards would presumably have to be re-examined by the other body for re-approval. In this regard, IAEA’s mechanism of issuing interim standards, after approval by IAEA but pending approval by co-sponsors, could be employed. VII. Summary of issues 17. Clearly, the first issue is whether the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space wishes to work with IAEA on the development of safety standards for nuclear power sources in outer space. If the Committee decides to do so, then the main issues that need to be clarified are: (a) Working language(s) and interpretation during IAEA meetings; (b) Review and approval mechanisms of the Committee; (c) The intended relationship between new standards and the existing Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space. Appendix II Proposed terms of reference for a joint Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space/International Atomic Energy Agency workshop/technical meeting to discuss the scope and general attributes of a potential safety standard for nuclear power sources in outer space Objective 1. To have an exchange of perspectives between experts from the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the scope and general attributes of a potential safety standard for nuclear power sources in outer space. Terms of reference 2. The workshop/technical meeting would: (a) Briefly review relevant background information, such as: (i) Report of the Working Group on the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space: a review of international documents and national processes potentially relevant to the peaceful uses of nuclear power sources in outer space (A/AC.105/781); (ii) A working paper from IAEA on its processes and procedures for developing general nuclear safety standards and obtaining the endorsement of its member States; (b) Consider working papers, one or more to be prepared by member States of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space on the unique features associated with the use of nuclear power sources in outer space applications that bear on potential safety standards; and one, to be prepared by IAEA experts, on the scope and general attributes of a potential safety standard from the perspective of safety standard setters; (c) Discuss the possible scope of a potential safety standard for nuclear power sources in outer space; (d) Discuss a set of potential attributes of a potential safety standard for nuclear power sources in outer space, taking account of the preliminary attributes of an international technically based framework of goals and recommendations for the safety of planned and foreseeable nuclear power source applications in outer space (A/AC.105/804, annex IV, para. 8); (e) If appropriate, consider preliminary components of such a potential safety standard for nuclear power sources in outer space; (f) Prepare an agreed joint report of the workshop/technical meeting for submission to IAEA and the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Duration 3. Provisionally, it is assumed that the workshop/technical meeting would last for two days. During the first day, after the formal introductions, the background papers, IAEA working paper and member State working papers would be presented. The papers would provide an input for discussing the potential scope, general attributes and components of a potential safety standard for nuclear power sources in outer space. 4. On the second day, delegates would continue their discussions in the morning. During the afternoon, workshop participants would draft a report back to IAEA and the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, presenting the consensus on the topics covered during the workshop. Venue and timing 5. The workshop/technical meeting could be organized by the Office for Outer Space Affairs and the IAEA secretariat in Vienna in the autumn of 2004, if possible immediately adjacent to the RASSC meeting in order to facilitate attendance by IAEA experts.

452124

United Nations S/2001/1058 Security Council Distr.: General 9 November 2001 English Original: French 01-63121 (E) 091101 *0163121* Draft resolution The Security Council, Recalling its previous resolutions and statements by its President, Reaffirming the obligation of all States to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, and reaffirming also the political independence, the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, including over its natural resources, Taking note of the Secretary-General’s report of 16 October 2001 (S/2001/970) and its recommendations, Welcoming the participation of the Political Committee for the implementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement (S/1999/818) in joint meetings held on 9 November 2001, Determining that the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo continues to pose a threat to international peace and security in the region, 1. Welcomes the general respect for the ceasefire among the parties to the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, expresses nonetheless its concern at the hostilities in areas of the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo and calls on the parties to cease any form of support to the armed groups, particularly in the east of the country; 2. Welcomes the withdrawal of some foreign forces from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, including the full Namibian contingent, as a positive step towards the full withdrawal of all foreign forces, and requests all States that have not yet done so to begin to implement, without delay, their full withdrawal in accordance with resolution 1304 (2000) of 16 June 2000; 3. Demands once again that Kisangani be demilitarized rapidly and unconditionally in accordance with Security Council resolution 1304 (2000), takes note of the pledge by the RCD-Goma during the 4411th meeting of 9 November 2001 fully to demilitarize the city, welcomes the decision of the Secretary-General to further deploy MONUC personnel in this city, notably to contribute to the training of police, stresses that, once demilitarized, no party will be permitted to reoccupy the city militarily and welcomes in this regard the pledge by the Government of the DRC, during the same meeting, to respect this provision; 4. Expresses its support for the inter-Congolese dialogue, one of the key elements ofthe peace process, and for all efforts to promote this process, calls on the Congolese parties to work together for the success of the dialogue, and expresses its support for the Facilitator and his call on the parties to make the dialogue fully inclusive; 5. Expresses its grave concern at the repeated human rights violations throughout the Democratic Republic of the Congo in particular in the territories under the control of the rebel groups party to the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, and calls on all parties to put an end to such violations; 6. Expresses its serious concern with regard to the humanitarian situation in the DRC and calls on the international community to increase, without delay, its support for humanitarian activities; 7. Expresses its serious concern with regard to the economic difficulties facing the Democratic Republic of the Congo, stresses that progress in the peace process and the economic recovery and development of the country are interdependent, and in this regard underlines the urgent need for increased international economic assistance in support of the peace process; 8. Reiterates its condemnation of all illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, demands that such exploitation cease and stresses that the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo should not be exploited to finance the conflict in that country; 9. Emphasizes that there are links between the peace processes in Burundi and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and, welcoming the recent progress in the Burundi process, invites the parties to the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement to work with the Burundian authorities to advance these two processes; 10. Supports the launching of phase III of the deployment of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) on the basis of the concept of operations detailed in paragraphs 59 to 87 of the Secretary-General’s report (S/2001/970) and stresses, in this regard, the importance it attaches to the deployment of MONUC in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in conformity with the new concept of operation and within the overall ceiling, including in the cities of Kindu and Kisangani; 11. Notes with concern the joint communiqué issued on 4 November 2001 by the Secretaries General of the Mouvement de Libération du Congo and of the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie concerning the deployment of a joint special force in Kindu, and stresses that appropriate conditions will be necessary to allow MONUC to fulfil its role in Kindu and to ensure that discussions on the voluntary disarmament and demobilization of concerned armed groups take place in a neutral environment; 12. Affirms that the implementation of phase III of the deployment of MONUC requires the following steps from the parties and requests the Secretary￾General to report on progress thereon: (i) The transmission to MONUC, as soon as possible and in accordance with its resolution 1355 (2001) of 15 June 2001, of the necessary operational information for the planning of MONUC support for the process of total withdrawal of foreign troops present in the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, including the number of foreign military personnel in the territory of the DRC, their equipment and armament, their exit routes, and a precise timetable for implementation; (ii) The transmission to MONUC, as soon as possible and in accordance with its resolution 1355 (2001), of the necessary operational information for the planning of MONUC’s mandated role in the process of disarmament, demobilization, repatriation, resettlement and reintegration (DDRRR) programme for the armed groups referred to in annex A, chapter 9.1 of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, including the number of persons concerned, their equipment and armament, their location, their intentions, as well as a precise timetable for implementation; (iii) The establishment of a direct dialogue between the governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda leading to confidence building and a joint mechanism for coordination, and exchanges of information regarding the DDRRR process; (iv) The establishment by the governments of the countries concerned, in particular Rwanda, and noting steps taken so far, of conditions conducive to voluntary DDRRR of the members of the armed groups concerned, in particular, by assuring the protection of the personal safety of the members of these armed groups, their civil rights and their economic reintegration including with the assistance of the donor community; (v) The demilitarization of Kisangani; (vi) The full restoration of freedom of movement for persons and goods between Kinshasa and Kisangani and throughout the country; (vii) The full cooperation by the parties with MONUC military and logistical operations, as well as its humanitarian, human rights, and child protection activities, including by permitting unrestricted access to ports and airports, and by refraining from introducing administrative and other impediments; 13. Expresses its satisfaction at the partnership established with the parties to the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, strengthened by regular contacts between the Political Committee for the implementation of that Agreement and the Council, and reiterates its firm determination to continue to provide assistance to the parties in their efforts to achieve peace; 14. Commends the outstanding work of MONUC personnel in challenging conditions, and pays tribute in particular to the efforts of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General; 15. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

495235

United Nations E/C.19/2003/L.9 Economic and Social Council Distr.: Limited 19 May 2003 Original: English 03-36462 (E) 190503 *0336462* Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Second session New York, 12-23 May 2003 Draft decision submitted by the Rapporteur The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues recommends to the Economic and Social Council the adoption of the following draft decision: “Bureau of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues “The Economic and Social Council, having taken note that the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues considered it useful to designate six members for its Bureau at its first and second sessions, confirms that emerging practice as a method of work of the Forum.”

605001

GE.07-13541 (E) 090807 UNITED NATIONS A General Assembly Distr. GENERAL A/HRC/OM/1/1 7 August 2007 Original: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL First organizational meeting 19-22 June 2007 REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL* Vice-President and Rapporteur: Mr. Alejandro Artucio (Uruguay) * The format of the present report should not serve as a precedent for any future organizational meeting of the Council. CONTENTS Chapter Page I. Resolutions and decisions adopted by the Human Rights Council at its organizational meeting ...................................................................................... 4 A. Resolutions OM/1/1. Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the follow-up to the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon ........................................ 4 OM/1/2. Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: follow-up to Human Rights Council resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1 ...................................................... 4 OM/1/3. Follow-up to resolution 4/8 of 30 March 2007 adopted by the Human Rights Council at its fourth session entitled “Follow-up to decision S-4/101 of 13 December 2006, adopted by the Council at its fourth special session entitled ‘Situation of human rights in Darfur’” .................................... 5 B. Decisions OM/1/101. Postponement of consideration of pending draft resolution and decisions ............................................................................ 6 OM/1/102. Dates of the sixth session ......................................................... 6 OM/1/103. Postponement of the first session of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference ...................... 6 Paragraphs II. Organizational and procedural matters ...................................... 1 - 16 6 A. Opening and duration of the organizational meeting ................. 1 - 3 6 B. Attendance ................................................................................. 4 7 C. Election of officers .................................................................... 5 - 7 7 D. Organization of work ................................................................. 8 - 13 7 E. Meeting and documentation ...................................................... 14 - 16 9 CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Paragraphs Page III. Other matters ................................................................................. 17 - 41 9 A. Follow-up to decisions of the Human Rights Council ............... 17 - 22 9 B. Consideration and action on draft proposals ............................. 23 - 41 11 IV. Reports to the General Assembly on the fifth session and the organizational meeting of the Council ........................... 42 - 44 14 Annex Estimated administrative and programme budget implications of resolutions and decisions adopted by the Council at its organizational meeting ........................................... 15 I. Resolutions and decisions adopted by the Human Rights Council at its organizational meeting A. Resolutions OM/1/1. Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the follow-up to the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon The Human Rights Council, Recalling its resolution S-2/1 of 11 August 2006 on “The grave situation of human rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli military operations”, Recalling also its resolution 3/3 of 8 December 2006 in which it requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to consult with the Government of Lebanon on the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon and its findings and on the relevant recommendations contained therein, Having considered the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the follow-up to the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon (A/HRC/5/9), 1. Takes note with satisfaction of the factual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/5/9); 2. Requests the High Commissioner to extend support to the activities and programmes of the Government of Lebanon, in particular those consistent with her report. Organizational meeting 1, 20 June 2007 [Adopted without a vote. See chap. III.] OM/1/2. Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: follow-up to Human Rights Council resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1 The Human Rights Council, Recalling its resolutions S-1/1 of 6 July 2006 and S-3/1 of 15 November 2006, Noting with regret that Israel, the occupying Power, has not to date implemented these two resolutions and hindered the dispatching of the urgent fact-finding missions specified therein, 1. Calls for the implementation of its resolutions S-1/1 of 6 July 2006 and S-3/1 of 15 November 2006, including the dispatching of the urgent fact-finding missions; 2. Requests the President of the Human Rights Council and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Council at the next session to be held in September 2007, on their efforts for the implementation of Council resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1 and on the compliance of Israel, the occupying Power, with these two resolutions. Organizational meeting 1, 20 June 2007 [Adopted without a vote. See chap. III.] OM/1/3. Follow-up to resolution 4/8 of 30 March 2007 adopted by the Human Rights Council at its fourth session entitled “Follow-up to decision S-4/101 of 13 December 2006, adopted by the Council at its fourth special session entitled ‘Situation of human rights in Darfur’” The Human Rights Council, 1. Welcomes the report on the situation of human rights in Darfur prepared by the group of experts mandated by the Human Rights Council in resolution 4/8 (A/HRC/5/6); 2. Requests the group of experts to continue its work for six months and to submit an update to the session of the Council in September 2007 and a final report to the following session of the Council. Organizational meeting 1, 20 June 2007 [Adopted without a vote. See chap. III.] B. Decisions OM/1/101. Postponement of consideration of pending draft resolution and decisions At its organizational meeting, on 20 June 2007, the Human Rights Council decided, without a vote, to postpone action on the following draft resolution and decisions deferred from previous sessions to its September session, pursuant to its decision 4/105 of 30 March 2007: − A/HRC/2/L.19 entitled “The use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination”; − A/HRC/2/L.30 entitled “World Programme for Human Rights Education”; − A/HRC/4/L.3 entitled “Israeli violations of religious and cultural rights in Occupied East Jerusalem”. OM/1/102. Dates of the sixth session At its organizational meeting, on 22 June 2007, the Human Rights Council decided, without a vote, to convene its sixth session from 10 to 28 September 2007. OM/1/103. Postponement of the first session of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference At its organizational meeting, on 22 June 2007, the Human Rights Council decided, without a vote, to postpone the first session of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference. II. ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Opening and duration of the organizational meeting 1. In accordance with rule 8 of its rules of procedure as contained in the annex to resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007, the Human Rights Council held the organizational meeting of the second cycle at the United Nations Office at Geneva from 19 to 22 June 2007 (see also paragraph 13 below). 2. On 19 June, the organizational meeting was opened by Mr. Luis Alfonso de Alba, President of the Human Rights Council during its first year. 3. On 20 June, the observer for Spain addressed the Council. On the same day, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Louise Arbour, made a statement. B. Attendance 4. The organizational meeting was attended by representatives of States members of the Council, observers for non-member States of the Council, observers for non-Member States of the United Nations and other observers, as well as observers for United Nations entities, specialized agencies, and related organizations, intergovernmental organizations and other entities, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations. C. Election of officers 5. On 19 June 2007, the Council elected the following officers by acclamation: President: Mr. Doru Romulus Costea (Romania) Vice-Presidents: Mr. Mohamed-Siad Doualeh (Djibouti) Mr. Boudewijn van Eenennaam (Netherlands) Mr. Dayan Jayatilleka (Sri Lanka) Vice-President and Rapporteur: Mr. Alejandro Artucio (Uruguay) 6. On the same date, the President made a statement. 7. On 22 June 2007, the President made a closing statement. D. Organization of work 8. On 19 June, the Council considered the organization of its work, including the speaking-time limits, which would be as follows: four minutes for statements by States members of the Council and concerned countries, and two minutes for statements by observers for non-member States of the Council and other observers, including United Nations entities, specialized agencies and related organizations, intergovernmental organizations and other entities, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations. The list of speakers would be drawn up in chronological order of registration and the order of speakers would be as follows: concerned countries, if any, followed by States members of the Council, observers for non-member States of the Council, and other observers. 9. On 22 June, the Council further considered the organization of its work, pursuant to rule 8 of its rules of procedure. On the same date, statements in connection with the organization of the Council’s work were made by the representatives of Brazil, China, Germany (on behalf of the European Union), India, Italy, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Slovenia, South Africa, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Uruguay, and the observers for Algeria, Australia and Portugal. 10. On the same date, Ms. Gay McDougall, independent expert on minority issues and Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Meeting of Special Procedures Mandate-Holders, addressed the Council. 11. Also on the same date, the Council decided, without a vote, on the dates of its sixth session. For the text of the decision as adopted, see chapter I, section B, decision OM/1/102. 12. Also on the same date, the Council decided, without a vote, to hold its organizational meeting two weeks before the beginning of its sixth session, in accordance with rule 8 of its rules of procedure as contained in the annex to resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007. 13. Also on the same date, the President of the Council updated the Council on the implementation of resolution 3/2 of 8 December 2006 entitled “Preparations for the Durban Review Conference”, in particular its paragraph 2 in which the Council decided, inter alia, that “the Preparatory Committee shall hold an organizational session of one week in May 2007”. The organizational session of the Preparatory Committee was scheduled to take place from 25 to 29 June 2007, as requested by the main sponsors and agreed upon by the Bureau of the Council at the 32nd meeting, on 30 March 2007. On 22 June, the Council decided, without a vote, to postpone the organizational session of the Preparatory Committee to a future date. For the text of the decision as adopted, see chapter I, section B, decision OM/1/103. E. Meeting and documentation 14. As indicated in paragraph 1 above, the Council met on 19, 20 and 22 June 2007 during its organizational meeting. 15. The texts of the resolutions and decisions adopted by the Council are contained in chapter I of the present report. 16. The annex to the present report contains the estimated administrative andprogramme budget implications of Council resolutions and decisions. III. OTHER MATTERS A. Follow-up to decisions of the Human Rights Council Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council/Draft code of conduct for special procedures mandate-holders of the Human Rights Council 17. On 19 June 2007, the Council proceeded with the necessary follow-up concerning the agreement on resolution 5/1 entitled “Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council” and resolution 5/2 entitled “Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate-Holders of the Human Rights Council”, adopted jointly at the 9th meeting on 18 June, pursuant to Council decision 5/101, also adopted at the 9th meeting. At the same meeting, on 18 June, the Council also decided to refer to its organizational meeting, starting on 19 June, the necessary follow-up concerning that agreement. 18. A point of order was raised by the representative of Canada, as to whether a decision had been taken at the 9th meeting of the fifth session, on 18 June. 19. The President ruled that a decision had been taken and that the Council needed to proceed with the necessary follow-up. The President’s ruling was put to the vote and approved by 46 votes to 1. The voting was as follows: In favour: Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Zambia. Against: Canada. Abstaining: None. 20. On 19 and 20 June 2007, pursuant to decision 5/101, the following representatives of States members of the Council explained their vote after the vote on resolutions 5/1 and 5/2 adopted at the 9th meeting, on 18 June: Algeria (on behalf of the Group of African States),∗ ∗ Non-member State speaking on behalf of one or more member States. Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, Germany (on behalf of the European Union), Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan (also on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Zambia. 21. On the same dates, statements in connection with resolutions 5/1 and 5/2 were also made by the following: (a) Observers for the following States: Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Chile, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Lebanon, Morocco, Poland, Singapore, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United States of America and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of); (b) Observer for the Holy See; (c) Observers for the following intergovernmental organizations: African Union and International Organization of la Francophonie; (d) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Comité international pour le respect et l’application de la Charte africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples; Indian Council of South America (also on behalf of International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic and Other Minorities, and International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples); International Federation of University Women (also on behalf of 3HO Foundation, International Council of Women, Medical Care Development International, Pan Pacific and South East Asia Women’s Association, Temple of Understanding, and Worldwide Organization for Women); International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development (also on behalf of International Indian Treaty Council); International Service for Human Rights (also on behalf of Amnesty International, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Asian Legal Resource Centre, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Conectas Direitos Humanos, Friends World Committee for Consultation, and Human Rights Watch); Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Among Peoples (also on behalf of Europe-Third World Centre, International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples and Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom); and United Nations Watch. 22. On 20 June, the representative of Mexico made a statement in connection with resolutions 5/1 and 5/2. B. Consideration and action on draft proposals 23. On 20 June, the Council considered and took action on the draft proposals which had been deferred from the fifth session, pursuant to its decision 5/102 adopted at the 9th meeting, on 18 June. 24. On the same day, the Council decided, without a vote, to refer to its September session the following draft proposals deferred to the fifth session pursuant to Council decision 4/105 of 30 March 2007: − A/HRC/2/L.19 entitled “The use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination”; − A/HRC/2/L.30 entitled “World Programme for Human Rights Education”; − A/HRC/4/L.3 entitled “Israeli violations of religious and cultural rights in Occupied East Jerusalem”. 25. For the text of the decision as adopted, see chapter I, section B, decision OM/1/101. Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the follow-up to the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon 26. On 20 June, the representative of Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Group of Arab States) introduced draft resolution A/HRC/5/L.4, sponsored by Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference) and the Sudan (on behalf of the Group of Arab States). Cuba subsequently joined the sponsors. 27. The representative of Pakistan orally revised the draft resolution by deleting the word “factual” in the third preambular paragraph. 28. A statement in connection with the draft resolution was made by the representative of Germany (on behalf of the European Union). 29. The draft resolution, as orally revised, was adopted without a vote. For the text as adopted, see chapter I, section A, resolution OM/1/1. Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: follow-up to Human Rights Council resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1 30. On 20 June 2007, the representative of Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Group of Arab States) introduced draft resolution A/HRC/5/L.5, sponsored by Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference) and the Sudan (on behalf of the Group of Arab States). Cuba subsequently joined the sponsors. 31. Statements in connection with the draft resolution were made by the observers for Israel and Palestine, as concerned countries, or parties. 32. The draft resolution was adopted without a vote. 33. Statements in explanation of vote after the vote were made by the representatives of Canada and Germany (on behalf of the European Union). 34. For the text of the draft resolution as adopted, see chapter I, section A, resolution OM/1/2. Follow-up to resolution 4/8 of 30 March 2007 adopted by the Human Rights Council at its fourth session entitled “Follow-up to decision S-4/101 of 13 December 2006, adopted by the Council at its fourth special session entitled ‘Situation of human rights in Darfur’” 35. On 20 June 2007, the representatives of Germany (on behalf of the European Union) and Egypt (on behalf of the Group of African States) introduced draft resolution A/HRC/5/L.6, sponsored by Germany (on behalf of the European Union) and Algeria (on behalf of the Group of African States). Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Turkey subsequently joined the sponsors. 36. In accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the attention of the Council was drawn to the estimated administrative and programme budget implications* of the draft resolution. 37. A statement in connection with the draft resolution was made by the observer for the Sudan as a concerned country. 38. The draft resolution was adopted without a vote. 39. A statement in explanation of vote after the vote was made by the representative of Canada. 40. For the text of the draft resolution as adopted, see chapter I, section A, resolution OM/1/3. Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory 41. On 20 June, the President informed the Council that the main sponsors of draft decision A/HRC/4/L.4 entitled “Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” (which had been deferred to the fifth session pursuant to Council resolution 4/105 of 30 March 2007) had decided to withdraw the draft decision. * See annex. IV. REPORTS TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON THE FIFTH SESSION AND THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL 42. On 20 June 2007, pursuant to Council decision 5/102 of 18 June, the Rapporteur and Vice-President of the Council during its first year, Mr. Mousa Burayzat (Jordan), read out a statement in connection with the draft report of the fifth session of the Council (A/HRC/5/L.10). The draft report was adopted ad referendum, and the Council decided to entrust the Rapporteur with the finalization of the report. 43. On 22 June, the Rapporteur and Vice-President of the Council during its second cycle, Mr. Alejandro Artucio (Uruguay), read out a statement in connection with the draft report of the organizational meeting of the Council (A/HRC/OM/1/L.10). The draft report was adopted ad referendum, and the Council decided to entrust the Rapporteur with the finalization of the report. 44. On the same date, the representative of Japan made a statement. ANNEX Estimated administrative and programme budget implications of resolutions and decisions adopted by the Council at its organizational meeting OM/1/3. Follow-up to resolution 4/8 of 30 March 2007 adopted by the Human Rights Council at its fourth session entitled “Follow-up to decision S-4/101 of 13 December 2006 adopted by the Council at its fourth special session entitled ‘Situation of human rights in Darfur’” 1. Under the terms of operative paragraph 2 of draft resolution A/HRC/5/L.6, the Human Rights Council would decide to request the Experts Group to continue its work for six months and to submit an update to the session of the Council in September 2007 and a final report to the following session of the Council. 2. Should the draft resolution be adopted by the Human Rights Council, the total full costs for: (a) travel of the members of the Group (consisting of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for children and armed conflict, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, the Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights of internally displaced persons, the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences) for two meetings in Geneva of three working days each; (b) travel of two representatives of the Group and two OHCHR staff for an eight-day mission to Sudan (three days Khartoum and five days Darfur); (c) travel to Geneva for a representative of the Group to present an update to the Human Rights Council in September 2007 and to present the final report to the following session of the Council; (d) staff costs for a coordinator at the P-4/5 level and one administrative assistant at the general service (other level) for six months; and (e) conference services to be provided to the Group for two meetings of three working days in 2007, are estimated in the amount of US$ 360,100 for the programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007 as follows: United States dollars Section 2, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs and conference management 80 100 Section 23, Human rights 276 000 Section 28E, Administration, Geneva 4 000 Total 360 100 3. Provisions have not been made under Sections 2, 23 and 28E of the programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007 for the activities envisaged under operative paragraph 2. Should the draft resolution be adopted, additional resources of US$ 360,100 would be required as reflected in paragraph 2 above. 4. The Secretariat has sought to identify areas in the programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007 from which resources can be redeployed to meet the requirements arising from the draft resolution. It is anticipated that the additional requirements can be accommodated to the extent possible within the resources already appropriated under the programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007. Should any additional expenditures arise in the implementation of the draft resolution, they would be reported accordingly in the context of the second performance report of the programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007. -----

489830

United Nations S/2003/311 Security Council Distr.: General 13 March 2003 Original: English 03-28091(E) 130303 *0328091* Letter dated 13 March 2003 from the Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council I have the honour to refer to the letter dated 7 March 2003 from President Thabo Mbeki to the Secretary-General and later circulated to the Members of the Security Council. South Africa has been closely following the consultations in the Security Council and specifically the proposals to set benchmarks against which Iraq’s cooperation could be measured in a transparent and objective manner. The Security Council may wish to consider that the current deliberations would be enhanced if the Security Council received a draft work programme containing the “key remaining disarmament tasks” from the weapons inspectors. As you will recall, during his statement to the Security Council on 7 March 2003, the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) stated: “Resolution 1284 (1999) instructs UNMOVIC to ‘address unresolved disarmament issues’ and to identify ‘key remaining disarmament tasks’ and the latter are to be submitted for approval by the Council in the context of a work programme. UNMOVIC will be ready to submit a draft work programme this month as required”. South Africa believes that the work programme of the inspectors is central to the negotiations under way in the Security Council. I therefore respectfully request the Security Council to consider requesting UNMOVIC to present its draft work programme as soon as possible. I should be grateful if you would have the present letter circulated as a document of the Security Council. (Signed) Dumisani S. Kumalo Ambassador Permanent Representative

405414

United Nations S/PV.4087 00-23451 (E) This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the interpretation of speeches delivered in the other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room C-178. Security Council Provisional Fifty-fifth Year 4087th Meeting Monday, 10 January 2000, 10 a.m. New York President: Mr. Gore ........................................ (United States of America) Members: Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Listre Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Chowdhury Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Duval China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Qin Huasun France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Dejammet Jamaica ......................................... Miss Durrant Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Hasmy Mali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Ouane Namibia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Amathila Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. van Walsum Russian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Gatilov Tunisia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Mustapha Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Yel’chenko United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . . . . . . . . Sir Jeremy Greenstock Agenda The situation in Africa The impact of AIDS on peace and security in Africa The meeting was called to order at10.30 a.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation in Africa The impact of AIDS on peace and security in Africa The President: I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Algeria, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mongolia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In accordance with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Baali (Algeria), Ms. Wensley (Australia), Mr. Fonseca (Brazil), Mr. Sotirov (Bulgaria), Mr. Leao Monteiro (Cape Verde), Mr. Šimonovic´ (Croatia), Mr. Rodríguez Parrilla (Cuba), Mr. Zackheos (Cyprus), Mr. Ileka (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Mr. Olhaye (Djibouti), Mr. Mohammed (Ethiopia), Mr. Wibisono (Indonesia), Mr. Vento (Italy), Mr. Satoh (Japan), Mr. Dorda (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Mr. Enkhsaikhan (Mongolia), Mr. Powles (New Zealand), Mr. Mbanefo (Nigeria), Mr. Honningstad (Norway), Mr. Brito (Portugal), Mr. Lee See-young (Republic of Korea), Mr. Ka (Senegal), Mr. Kumalo (South Africa), Dr. Kiyonga (Uganda), Mr. Kasanda (Zambia) and Dr. Stamps (Zimbabwe) took the seats reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber. The President: In accordance with the understanding reached in the Council's prior consultations, and in the absence of objection, I shall take it that the Security Council agrees to extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to Mr. James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank; Mr. Mark Malloch Brown, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme; and Dr. Peter Piot, Executive Director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. There being no objection, it is so decided. I welcome Mr. Wolfensohn, Mr. Malloch Brown and Dr. Piot, and invite them to take a seat at the Council table. Let me thank the members of the Council for the honour of presiding over it, and for their willingness to greet the dawn of this new millennium by exploring a brand-new definition of world security. Today marks the first time, after more than 4,000 meetings stretching back over more than half a century, that the Security Council will discuss a health issue as a security threat. We tend to think of a threat to security in terms of war and peace. Yet no one can doubt that the havoc wreaked and the toll exacted by HIV/AIDS do threaten our security. The heart of the security agenda is protecting lives, and we now know that the number of people who will die of AIDS in the first decade of the twenty-first century will rival the number that died in all of the wars in all of the decades of the twentieth century. When 10 people in sub-Saharan Africa are infected every minute; when 11 million children have already become AIDS orphans, and many must be raised by other children; when a single disease threatens everything from economic strength to peacekeeping, we clearly face a security threat of the greatest magnitude. This historic meeting not only recognizes the real and present danger to world security posed by the AIDS pandemic — which I will discuss in further detail during my remarks as head of the United States delegation — but also begins a month-long focus by this Council on the special challenges confronting the continent of Africa. The powerful fact that we begin here today by concentrating on AIDS has a still larger significance: it sets a precedent for Security Council concern and action on a broader security agenda. By the power of example, this meeting demands of us that we see security through a new and wider prism and, forever after, think about it according to a new and more expansive definition. For the past half century, the Security Council has dealt with the classic security agenda built upon common efforts to resist aggression and to stop armed conflict. We have witnessed wars among nations, and violence on the scale of war within nations, for many reasons: because of 2 claims of religious or racial superiority; because of lust for power, disguised as ideology or rationalized as geo-strategic doctrine; because of a sense that a small place or a larger region, or even the whole world itself, was too small to allow for the survival and prosperity of all, unless the powerful could dominate the weak; because of the tendency of too many to see themselves solely as separate groups, celebrating and defending their exclusivity by demonizing and dehumanizing others; and because of poverty, which causes the collapse of hopes and expectations and the coming apart of society, and makes people first desperate, and then freshly open to evil leadership. But while the old threats still face our global community, there are new things under the sun — new forces arising that now, or soon will, challenge international order, raising issues of peace and war. As our world enters the year 2000, it is not the change in our calendar that matters. What matters is that in this symbolic transition from old to new, we find one of those precious few moments in all of human history when we have a chance to become the change we wish to see in the world, by seeking a common agreement to openly recognize a powerful new truth that has been growing just beneath the surface of every human heart. It is time to change the nature of the way we live together on this planet. From this new vantage point, we must forge and follow a new agenda for world security, an agenda that includes the global environmental challenge, which could render all our other progress meaningless unless we deal with it successfully; the global challenge of defeating drugs and corruption, which now spill across our borders; the global challenge of terror, magnified by the availability of new weapons of mass destruction so small they can be concealed in a coat pocket; the new pandemics laying waste to whole societies; and the emergence of new strains of old diseases that are horrifyingly resistant to the antibiotics that protected the past three generations. Our new security agenda should be pursued with determination, adequate resources and creative use of the new tools at the world's disposal that can be used to bring us together in successful common efforts — tools such as the Internet and the emerging global information infrastructure which, if used imaginatively, will enable new depths of insight and cooperation by nations, non￾governmental organizations and citizens at all levels. Our task is not merely to recognize and confront these challenges, but to rise to our higher ideals and work together to make our brightest dreams real in the lives of our children. In order to succeed, I believe — along with growing billions around this planet — that we must create a world where people's faith in their own capacity for self￾governance unlocks their human potential and justifies their growing belief that all can share in an ever-widening circle of human dignity and self-sufficiency; a world of freedom and free markets; a world where the free flow of ideas and information, and freer access to education, sustain fundamental freedoms; a world in which parents are free to choose the size of their families with the confidence that the children they bring into this world will survive to become healthy adults, with economic opportunity in prosperous and peaceful communities; a world where we educate girls as well as boys and secure the rights of women everywhere as full members of the human family. All this and more constitutes the great global challenge of our time: to create and strengthen a sense of solidarity as we seek a newer world of security for all — security not only from loss of life and the ravages of war, but security from constant fear and degradation, and from a loss of the quality of life and liberty of spirit that should belong to all. If we are to succeed in addressing this new security agenda, we must recognize that because of our rapid growth in population and the historically unprecedented power of the new technologies at our widespread disposal, mistakes which once were tolerable can now have consequences that are multiplied manyfold. For example, for almost all of recorded history, people could do whatever they wished to their environment, and do little to harm it permanently. People could wage war in the world, and do nothing to destroy it. But now, threats that were once local can have consequences that are regional or global; damage once temporary can now become chronic and catastrophic. As a world community, we must prove to our citizens that we are wise enough to control what we have been smart enough to create. We must understand that the old conception of global security — with its focus almost exclusively on armies, ideologies and geopolitics — has to be enlarged. We need to show that we not only can contain aggression, prevent war and mediate conflicts, but that we can also work together to anticipate and respond to a new century, with its new global imperatives. The human mind — our ingenuity, our dreaming, our restless quest to do better — created this moment. Now the human heart, coupled with the human will — 3 not of one individual, not of one nation or group of nations, but the collective will of truly united nations — must master this moment. We must bend it in the direction of life, not death; justice, not oppression; opportunity, not deprivation — a new security for the new world we now inhabit. The future is not something that we merely try to predict. The future is something that we make for ourselves, together. It is up to us to move forward — with faith in our principles, our foresight and our common humanity. The Spanish poet Antonio Machado once said, “Pathwalker, there is no path; we create the path as we walk”. There is great hope in this pathmaking meeting. It is an honour to open it. And my hope is that the first days and years of the millennium, and all those that follow, will be guided by the vision that marks this first meeting. We live in a new tine. We face new and larger responsibilities. Meet them we can, and meet them we must — for the new threats to humanity are as grave as war itself, and the new hopes we have are as precious as peace. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Council is meeting in accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations. It is my personal honour to call on the Secretary￾General of the United Nations, who has given so much to the cause of peace and security, Mr. Kofi Annan. The Secretary-General: Thank you, Mr. Vice￾President; or perhaps I should say Mr. President — of the Security Council. The President: I am working on it! The Secretary-General: Let me thank you, Mr. President, for your thoughtful statement. Your presence here today is a promising start indeed to the New Year and welcome evidence of your country's commitment to the United Nations. As we open this new millennium, many of us have much to be thankful for. Most of the world is at peace. Most of us are better educated than our parents or grandparents. We can expect to live longer lives, with greater freedom and a wider range of choices. But we also face new challenges, or old ones in new and alarming forms. For instance, environmental degradation, ethnic conflicts, bad or inadequate governance, widespread violations of human rights, illiteracy and ill health, the growing problem of inequality both within and between nations, and, above all, the exclusion of too many of the world's people from the benefits of globalization, whereby nearly half the human race is condemned to remain in lingering, stubborn poverty. No part of the world is exempt from these problems. But Africa, it seems, has more than its share. Of the 48 least developed countries in the world today, 33 are in Africa. Out of two dozen or more conflicts raging around the world, roughly half are in Africa. Fifteen sub-Saharan African countries are currently faced with exceptional food emergencies. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo alone, the food supplies of 10 million people are threatened by civil strife. And out of 11 million orphans left so far by the global AIDS epidemic, 90 per cent are African children. Those figures speak for themselves. They amply justify your country's decision to make this first month of a new era a month of Africa in the Security Council, just as the Organization of African Unity has declared this year the Year of Peace, Security and Solidarity in Africa. It is good that Africans are taking the lead, because the inspiration for genuine and viable peace must spring from within the peoples that are in conflict, and especially from their leaders. Many parts of the continent are making impressive progress. There is no need to give way to Afro￾pessimism. On the contrary, there could be no better moment for the international community to rally to Africa's support. And within its month of Africa, it is entirely appropriate that the Council should be devoting its first session to the problem of AIDS. Some may say that such a topic should be left to other United Nations bodies. I believe, however, that the Council would not do itself justice if it held a month of Africa without discussing what Ambassador Holbrooke has called the number one problem facing Africa today. Not that AIDS is a purely African problem. There are many countries outside Africa, especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, where it is spreading at an alarming rate. But nowhere else has AIDS yet become a threat to economic, social and political stability on the scale that it now is in southern and eastern Africa. The impact of AIDS in that region is no less destructive than that of warfare itself. Indeed, by some measures it is far worse. 4 Last year, AIDS killed about 10 times more people in Africa than did armed conflict. By overwhelming the continent’s health services, by creating millions of orphans and by decimating health workers and teachers, AIDS is causing social and economic crises, which in turn threaten political stability. It also threatens good governance through high death rates among the elites, both public and private. In already unstable societies, this cocktail of disasters is a sure recipe for more conflict, and conflict in turn provides fertile ground for further infections. The breakdown of health and education services, the obstruction of humanitarian assistance, the displacement of whole populations: all these ensure that the epidemic spreads further and faster on the continent. In short, HIV/AIDS is not only an African problem. It is global and must be recognized as such. But within that international obligation the fight against AIDS in Africa is an immediate priority which must be part and parcel of our work for peace and security in that continent. As most African Governments have now understood, the first battle to be won in the war against AIDS is the battle to smash the wall of silence and stigma surrounding it. A month ago, here at United Nations Headquarters, we held the first high-level meeting of African Governments and United Nations agencies directly involved in the fight against AIDS, along with donor Governments, private corporations and non-governmental organizations. I called on them to formulate, by next May, a response commensurate with the scale of the crisis, and I spelled out the specific responsibility of each partner in the struggle. It now gives me great pleasure to welcome this Council as an additional partner. Its role, I suggest, must be to prevent conflict from contributing to the spread of AIDS and from impeding the efforts that other partners are making to control it. Later in this meeting the Council will be hearing more about the economic and social as well as the more strictly health-related aspects of the epidemic from my colleagues Mr. Jim Wolfensohn, Mr. Malloch Brown and Peter Piot. I believe their contributions — alongside your own, Mr. President, and those of other Members — will help make it clear to the whole world that the United Nations system, in all its parts, is giving Africa’s problems the attention they need and which Africans deserve. The President: I thank the Secretary-General for his statement and for the kind words he addressed to me. I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of the United States. I would like to begin with these words: HIV/AIDS is not someone else’s problem. It is my problem; it is your problem. By allowing it to spread, we face the danger that our youth will not reach adulthood. Their education will be wasted, the economy will shrink, there will be a large number of sick people whom the health system will not be able to maintain. These are not my words. They were not uttered in the United States or the United Nations. They were spoken by my friend President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa as he declared South Africa’s partnership against AIDS more than a year ago. The same words should be spoken out not only in South Africa, not only in Africa, but all across the earth. In Africa the scale of the crisis may be greater, the infrastructure weaker and the people poorer, but the threat is real for every people and every nation, everywhere on Earth. No border can keep AIDS out. It cuts across all the lines that divide us. We owe ourselves and each other the utmost commitment to act against AIDS on a global scale, and especially where the scourge is greatest. AIDS is a global aggressor that must be defeated. As we enter this new millennium, Africa has entered the first frontier of momentous progress. Over the past decade a rising wave of African nations has moved from dictatorship to democracy, embraced economic reform, opened markets, privatized enterprises, stabilized currency. More than half the nations of Africa now elect their own leaders — nearly four times the number 10 years ago. Economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa has tripled, creating prospects for a higher quality of life across the continent. Tragically, this historic progress is imperiled just as it is taking hold — imperiled by the spread of AIDS, which now grips 20 million Africans. Fourteen million have already died, one quarter of them children. Each day in Africa 11,000 more men, women and children become HIV-positive, more than half of them under the age of 25. 5 For the nations of sub-Saharan Africa, AIDS is not just a humanitarian crisis. It is a security crisis, because it threatens not only individual citizens but the institutions that define and defend the character of a society. This disease weakens workforces and saps economic strength. AIDS strikes at teachers and denies education to their students. It strikes at the military and subverts the forces of order and peacekeeping. The United States is profoundly moved by the toll AIDS is now taking in Africa. At the same time, we know that our own country has not achieved as much as we should or must in our own battle against AIDS. I am pleased that our Surgeon General, Dr. David Satcher, is here with me today. His recent report tells us that we have not overcome the ignorance and indifference that lead to infection. We must continue to study the success of others while we seek to share with others whatever progress we have made. As Vice-President, I have journeyed four times to sub￾Saharan Africa. I asked Dr. Satcher to accompany me on one such trip. I have taken along top health officials, AIDS specialists, corporate leaders and physicians. We have spent long hours with African leaders, heard their ideas and discussed their difficulties with the fateful crisis of AIDS. It is inspiring to see so many in Africa — not only leaders but health-care workers and community workers, mothers and fathers and countless ordinary citizens — fighting to save the lives of the people they love. Ten years ago, Uganda was suffering the world’s highest infection rate. Today, because the whole nation has mobilized to end stigma, urge prevention and change behaviour, Uganda is now recording dramatic drops in the infection rate. Uganda, which used to be proof of the problem, is now powerful proof that we can turn the tide against AIDS. We know that the first line of defence against this disease is prevention, and prevention depends on breaking down the barriers against discussing the extent and risks of AIDS. That is one purpose of this historic Security Council meeting. Today, in sight of all the world, we are putting the AIDS crisis at the top of the world’s security agenda. We must talk about AIDS not in whispers, not in private meetings alone, in tones of secrecy and shame. We must face the threat as we are facing it right here, in one of the great forums of this earth, openly and boldly, with urgency and compassion. Until we end the stigma of AIDS, we will never end the disease of AIDS. Let us begin by resolving to end the stigma associated with AIDS. We also must do much more to provide basic care and treatment to the growing number of people who, thank God, are living instead of dying with HIV and AIDS. This requires affordable medicine, but also more than medicine. It requires that we train doctors, nurses and home-care workers, that we develop clinics and community-based organizations to deliver care to those who need it. Today fewer than 5 per cent of those living with AIDS in Africa have access to even basic care. We know we can prolong life, reduce suffering and allow mothers with AIDS to live longer with their children if we offer treatment for opportunistic infections such as tuberculosis and malaria. Our ultimate goal, our best hope, is to prevent AIDS by vaccination, and we are committed to the maximum possible research. But we need to do more to harness the talent and the power of the private sector. In September, in his speech to the General Assembly, President Clinton said it was wrong that only 2 per cent of all biomedical research was directed to the major killer diseases in the developing world. He pledged America to a new effort to speed the development and delivery of vaccines for AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other illnesses that disproportionately afflict the poorest nations. This three-part strategy of prevention, treatment and research is the right fight, and the United States has contributed more than $1 billion to wage it worldwide, more than half of that for sub-Saharan Africa. But we must do more. Last year I announced the largest ever increase in the United States commitment to international AIDS programmes: $100 million to fight AIDS in Africa, India, Eastern Europe and other areas. Today I announce America's decision to step up the battle. The budget the Clinton-Gore Administration will send to our Congress next month will include an additional increase of another $100 million, for a total of $325 million, to fund our worldwide fight against AIDS. This new funding will include efforts to reduce the stigma and prevent the spread of AIDS, to reduce mother-to-child transmission, to support home and community-based care for people with AIDS, to provide care for children orphaned by AIDS and to strengthen health infrastructures to prevent and treat AIDS. I would also like to announce here this morning that the budget we will send to our Congress next month will 6 include $50 million for the UnitedStates contribution to the vaccine fund of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations. This contribution, in fulfilment of the promise President Clinton made to the General Assembly, will help fund the research, purchase and distribution of life-saving vaccines in developing nations. I am also announcing today an initiative for an expanded public-private partnership in the battle against AIDS. Indeed, in the coming months I will convene a meeting of United States business leaders active in Africa to develop a set of voluntary principles for corporate conduct to make the workplace an effective place for the education and prevention of AIDS. Let us also set this goal. Through public and private efforts, in partnership with partner nations, we will attack the cycle of infection at one critical point, its most heartbreaking point: the moment of mother-to-child transmission. In addition, I announce that our budget request for next year will for the first time ever contain specific funding for the United States military to work with the armed forces of other nations to combat AIDS. Inside our own country, our armed forces have acted effectively to prevent the spread of AIDS in the military. Secretary of Defense Cohen is ready to share our experience with our military counterparts in Africa. He will visit the United Nations during this historic month. We are also committed to helping poor countries gain access to affordable medicines, including those for HIV/AIDS. Last month the President announced a new approach to ensure that we take public health crises into account when applying United States trade policy. We will cooperate with our trading partners to ensure that United States trade policies do not hinder their efforts to respond to health crises. But to win the ongoing global battle against AIDS, we must also fight the poverty that speeds its spread. In June in Cologne, we joined with our G-7 partners in the Cologne debt initiative, a landmark commitment to faster and deeper debt relief for the heavily indebted poor countries. We will continue to engage our G-7 partners to bring greater resources to this effort. Today I challenge the world's wealthier, healthier nations to match America's increasing commitment to a worldwide crusade against AIDS. But more money is not enough. We must also make sure that more money has more impact. Next July the global community will gather in Durban, South Africa, for the thirteenth International AIDS Conference. There are many inspiring efforts to fight AIDS all around the world. But right now they mostly amount to many isolated efforts and not a single focused assault. We must knit together the separate initiatives by local, national, regional and global organizations to take maximum advantage of their synergy and successes. We will work with the organizers of the Durban Conference to advance this essential objective. It is essential because how we spend the money and how effectively we target it, not just how much we spend, will determine how many lives we save. AIDS is one of the most devastating threats ever to confront the world community. Many have called the battle against it a sacred crusade. The United Nations was created to stop wars. Now we must wage and win a great and peaceful war of our time — the war against AIDS. Let all, here and around the world, who are willing to enlist in this cause hear and heed and take heart from the words of an African poet, Mongane Wally Serote: “Remember the passion of our hearts, the blinding ache and pain when we heard the hysterical sobs of our little children crying against fate. We heard these. We knew them. We absorbed them. But we surged forward, knowing that life is a promise and that that promise is us.” That promise is us. We here in this room, representing the billions of people of the world, must become the promise of hope and change. We must become the promise of life itself. We have the knowledge, the compassion and the means to make a difference. We must acknowledge our moral duty and accept our great and grave responsibility to succeed. We must make the promise and keep the promise to prevail against this disease so that when the story of AIDS is told to future generations, it will be a tale not just of human tragedy, but a tale of human triumph. And the moral of that story will be the capacity of the human spirit to summon us in common cause to defeat a common foe and secure the health and hopes of so many of our fellow human beings. May God bless all who have suffered from this disease and are suffering from it. May God bless the united effort of our United Nations to end it soon and for ever. I resume my functions as President of the Council, and I am pleased that in this first meeting of the millennium we are joined by one of the world's leaders in 7 the battle against poverty, the President of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn. I give him the floor. Mr. Wolfensohn: Let me start, Vice-President Gore, by thanking you for your invitation to attend this meeting. I believe it is the first time that a President of the World Bank has ever attended a meeting of this body. It was a dream that I did not think would be realized in my period as President, so I am grateful for that, as I am, indeed, for your putting on the agenda the issue of health and the issue of development, in which you have been so steadfast in your support of our institution. I am also very grateful to Secretary-General Annan for the leadership that he showed in bringing the World Bank more closely in parallel and in partnership with other institutions of the United Nations, and I am very happy to be here with my colleagues from my the United Nations Development Programme and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). I do not know a lot about the workings of the Security Council. I have images of you ladies and gentlemen meeting at midnight, having very important meetings, using high diplomacy and power politics to solve very important and pressing issues that face us: issues of conflict, issues of chemical weapons, issues of nuclear challenges and issues of security. The funny thing is that in Washington we think that what we do every day in terms of addressing the questions of development are actions which lead to the very same issue of security and peace. We work every day looking at the conditions of our planet and think in terms of the 6 billion people who now inhabit our globe, of the 3 billion people who live on less than $2 per day, of the 1.2 billion that live on less than $1 per day, and we think of the next 25 years, when that 6 billion will grow to 8 billion. We wonder what sort of a world it will be. Without being a social scientist or an Ambassador, I know that if people are well fed, have opportunity, are well-governed and have a sense of security for their children, they are less likely to fight and get into problems than if they live in a period where they have no governance, where the sinews of governance do not give them security and where there is little hope. We are worried about the next 25 years, and I would suggest that this is a subject directly relevant to the deliberations of this Council. If it is true that poverty eradication and development are the counterpart of security, then nowhere is this more important than in Africa. In sub-Saharan Africa we have 500 million people, of whom more than half live in poverty. It is there, as the Secretary-General commented, the greater part of conflict and wars exist today. These are considerations that this Council has before it. If, therefore, Africa is at the centre of the agenda, which indeed it is this month — and I congratulate Ambassador Holbrooke on this initiative — then surely the question of AIDS comes to the top of the list as an issue which can affect security, development and poverty. What we are seeing is that in today's world we are rolling back some of the gains that have been made in Africa over the last 40 years. The numbers are very compelling. Under African leadership, we gained more than 20 years in life expectancy. In many countries this gain will be lost by the year 2010. The statistics have already been provided by previous speakers. But just imagine that in Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe, 25 per cent of the people between 15 and 19 years of age are HIV-positive. Just imagine that in Zambia and Zimbabwe there is a greater chance that a child born today will die of AIDS than will live free of it. These are stunning statistics. The fact that a third of teenage girls in many African countries are subject to the scourge of AIDS is not something that can lead to a sense of security in a community. In a number of countries, we are losing teachers faster than we can replace them. We are losing judges, lawyers, government officials and military personnel. This problem is more effective than war itself in terms of destabilizing countries. Unless we act, this will continue, and there will surely be continued instability in the continent. AIDS is not just a health issue. AIDS is not just a development issue. It is also an issue that affects the peace and security of people in the continent of Africa and throughout the world. It is certainly a subject that merits consideration by this body. The world looks to the Security Council to highlight important issues and looks to the United Nations to give leadership. In order to solve these global problems, we need to bring together not just the United Nations, but also the private sector, civil society, the faiths, organizations such as ours and regional institutions. The focus on the priorities can be given by this body. 8 I am honoured to be here, but in coming I want to assure you, Mr. President, that we look forward to a partnership with the United Nations and recognition by this Council. Your successors, who will be dealing with issues of security, are going to be looking at the causes. I tell you this: poverty and development are the root cause of most of the conflicts, and it is essential for this body to take action in anticipation of a world that, without such action, will be a world in conflict. I look forward to working with the Council in the months and years ahead on this issue of AIDS in Africa and on the general issue of poverty and development. The President: Our next two speakers will be the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme, Mr. Mark Malloch Brown, and the Executive Director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), Mr. Peter Piot. Their statements will be of great importance. I urge those joining us here to stay and absorb the impact of their words. It is my intention, before they speak, with the concurrence of Council members, to suspend the meeting for a few minutes. When the meeting reconvenes, I shall turn the gavel of the President of the Security Council over to Ambassador Holbrooke. I would like to note the presence of three Ministers of Health who are here with us today from Namibia, Uganda and Zimbabwe. We have much to learn from these ministers, and we are all grateful for their attendance. I would also like to note, before the recess, that in the United States of America, the work of Senators Jesse Helms and Joseph Biden — and a strong majority from both of our major political parties — has expressed fresh support not only for the United States being a vigorous member of this body but also for the efforts of this body in every way, shape and form. Indeed, it has been a great honour to preside over the beginning of this meeting. Now, with the concurrence of Council members, I suspend the meeting. The meeting was suspended at 11.15 a.m. Mr. Holbrooke (United States of America) took the Chair; the meeting was resumed at 11.30 a.m. The President: It is my high personal honour to call on my friend of over 20 years, the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. Mr. Malloch Brown (United Nations Development Programme): It was obviously a great honour for us all in the United Nations community that the Vice-President of the United States joined us this morning. Even in his absence, I would like to thank him for having been here in this Chamber on this issue at this time and to have made the new commitments he did make. We have all heard the statistics and also what can be said in words of the human impact. HIV/AIDS in sub￾Saharan Africa accounts for 23.3 million of the 36 million affected individuals worldwide — 69 per cent of the total number of HIV/AIDS cases. At a time when the industrialized world has relaxed in the face of a declining incidence of new HIV infections, Africa is under siege. Many times more people are being killed by the disease in sub-Saharan Africa each year than in all the world's wars. This is a new security front line and I congratulate Richard Holbrooke for the vision to go beyond old definitions to bring to this table a discussion of the world's most dangerous insurgency. HIV/AIDS has a qualitatively different impact than a traditional health killer such as malaria. It rips across social structures, targeting a young continent's young people, particularly its girls. By cutting deep into all sectors of society, it undermines vital economic growth, perhaps reducing future national gross domestic product size in the region by a third over the next 20 years. And by putting huge additional demand on already weak, hard￾to-access public services, it is setting up the terms of a desperate conflict over inadequate resources. Today this is Africa's drama; unmet, it becomes the world's. So there is real resonance that, at this first Security Council meeting of the new millennium, it is health — not war and peace — that brings us here. But it does so because of the proposition that, in this new globalized century, one will beget the other and that, in the final years of the last, we woefully neglected the new causes of conflict. We must view this as a war on three fronts: first, the classrooms and clinics of Africa; secondly, the families of 9 Africa; and, thirdly, international action — the critical support needed to back Africa's front line. An extraordinary depletion of the region's human capital is under way. There are estimates that the number of active doctors and teachers in the most affected countries could be reduced by a third in the coming years. Yet schools and clinics are not only at the heart of any defensive strategy for dealing with the consequences of the epidemic; they spearhead the offensive for cultural and behavioural change. We see the possibilities. In Uganda, there is now a real prospect of an almost AIDS-free generation of high-school-age children. Countries are strung out along a continuum from effective action at one end to at least acknowledgement and awareness at the other. Yet, even with better national awareness, in too many places individual ostracism, and hence denial, still prevail, confounding good tracking and management of the disease. Behaviour change requires uncompromising, often painfully embarrassing honesty, for there is too often a lethal cultural double standard when it comes to AIDS of too much unsafe sex and too little willingness to talk about it or face its consequences. Change must begin by confronting the region's troubled inheritance: extensive migrant labour, social norms and gender inequality, making it hard for women and girls to deny men sex, leading to HIV incidence rates among girls three or four times higher than those for boys. Let me propose to this Council a set of actions. First, we must support Africa's front-line efforts to combat the disease. We can see that, where promoting awareness leads to honest discussion, which leads to behaviour change, the momentum can be broken. But there is no substitute for the region's own opinion-makers — from state house to community media to town and village — leading that campaign. Second, we must promote inter-country cooperation so that Uganda's best practice is effectively transferred to countries doing less well, and best practice means a strong national plan and full community mobilization — nothing less. Third, we need resources. The United States, with 40,000 new cases annually, spends approximately $10 billion annually from all sources for prevention, care, treatment and research, whereas approximately $165 million are spent on HIV/AIDS-related activities in Africa, where there are 4 million new cases a year. We must mobilize more and today's commitment is a wonderful start towards that. Fourth, we need a coordinated response. I currently chair the committee of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) co-sponsoring organizations: the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank and the United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP). Together, we, the bilaterals, the private sector and non￾governmental organizations must do more at the country and global levels. We applaud the formation of the International Partnership Against HIV/AIDS in Africa, which is a foot in the door to private-sector-supported affordable care. Fifth, UNICEF, WHO and the World Bank, together with UNAIDS and a number of innovative foundations, have begun to innovate new public-private partnerships that, by guaranteeing a market for affordable vaccines, will incentivize drug-company research and development. The African market for international pharmaceuticals now accounts for less than 1.5 per cent of the global industry. This “pull” of new incentives must be combined with the “push” of increasing basic public-health research spending. Sixth, we cannot lapse into a global two-tier treatment regime: drugs for the rich; no hope for the poor. While the emphasis must be on prevention, we cannot ignore treatment, despite its costs. We must work with the cooperation of the pharmaceutical industry to bring down treatment costs. Seventh and finally, we cannot break this epidemic in isolation from the broader development context. Weak government, poor services and economic failure translate directly into failed vaccine and contaminated blood-supply chains. More broadly, it means the failure of schools, families, workplaces and economies to be able to meet the challenge. In this region, where official development finance is drying up, I find myself fighting to reverse UNDP's own projection that our programme resources for Africa next year will be only a third of what they were five years ago. So, amidst the good news of more help for HIV/AIDS, progress on debt relief and some 10 improvement in private-sector flows, the overwhelming fact is that the region's basic development needs are not being met. There is a money gap and a governance and capacity gap. Neither the finance nor the institutions and policies are adequately in place. Members of the Council, at this first Security Council meeting of the century you have brought development into your Chamber. You have elevated it from a long-term economic and social issue to a current danger, a vulnerability to be addressed as a matter of political priority. HIV/AIDS is a particularly cruel manifestation of the wider development challenge. It vividly demonstrates the broader point: no other challenge can perhaps so shape the overall direction of this new century, either towards a globalization for all, or back to a century of walls and fences. The President: I thank Mark Malloch Brown for the immense contribution which he, like the World Bank under Jim Wolfensohn, makes on this issue. Before calling on the next speaker, I would like to acknowledge — and I apologize for not doing this earlier — our newest member of the Security Council, who presented his credentials this morning, the new Ambassador from Argentina. Welcome. Also, I want to welcome to the Security Council the five new members — Bangladesh, Jamaica, Mali, Tunisia and Ukraine — and to thank the departing members for their participation. I look forward to working with you all over the next few weeks. It is now my honour to call on the head of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), Dr. Peter Piot. Dr. Piot: I thank the Council for this opportunity to address it today on what is, I believe, one of the most important issues for this century. Twenty years ago the global community had not even heard of AIDS. Over 50 million people, cumulatively, have become infected since then. Today it is discussed in the Security Council because AIDS is not a health or development problem like any other. As we have heard, it has become, in Africa at least, an issue of human security in all senses of the word. Comprehending the full scale of the epidemic is almost impossible. We have heard the Secretary-General talk of 11 million orphans. We would be short-sighted to underestimate the long-term impact of their personal tragedies on the development and stability of Africa. War is one of the instruments of AIDS, as rape is one of the instruments of war. Conflict and the resulting movements of people fuel the epidemic. Refugee men, and particularly women, become highly vulnerable to HIV infection. Humanitarian aid workers and military and police forces that are well trained in HIV prevention and behaviour change can be a tremendous force for prevention as long as this is made one of their priorities. But there is also good news, and I would like to concentrate on that this morning. We are far from powerless against this epidemic. In countries where strong political leadership, openness about the issues and broad, cross-cutting responses come together, the tide is turning, and clear success is being demonstrated. We have heard about Uganda, where the rate of new infections is falling. But so it is in several communities in Africa. In Senegal, HIV infections have stayed at a very low level as a result of successful prevention campaigns. We know now what works: two decades of experience have identified the essential elements of effective strategy. Let me mention six of them: first, as Vice President Gore mentioned, visibility, openness and countering stigma, without compromise; secondly, addressing core vulnerability to HIV through social policies; thirdly, recognizing the synergy between prevention and care efforts; fourthly, targeting interventions on those most vulnerable; fifthly, encouraging and supporting strong community participation in the response; and lastly, focusing on young people, the future of the continent. Over the last 12 months, many, many African leaders have spoken out in unprecedented ways, breaking the silence and the stigma of the epidemic. Internationally, too, the tide is turning. This meeting is an illustration of that. This past June, the General Assembly special session established a new development target for 2005, based on demonstrated success in a number of countries, of reducing new infections by 25 per cent in young people. Members of the Council, the challenge is formidable but so too are the technical, financial and political resources of the international community. However, in financial needs alone, we are a long way short of meeting our mark. The most recent available figures, from 1997, indicate that the international community mobilized only $150 million for AIDS prevention for the most affected countries in Africa. This has been put into context by Mark Malloch Brown. To sustain and expand the prevention success stories of Uganda, Senegal and other countries, we need to mobilize between $1 and $3 billion 11 per year. It is worth pondering how hundreds of billions of dollars were successfully mobilized over the last few years to minimize the impact of that other virus, Y2K. Over the last year, African Governments, the United Nations system, international donors, civil society and the private sector have come together to form a new international partnership against AIDS in Africa. As the Council heard, last month the Secretary-General tasked us in this very building with formulating a response commensurate with the epidemic. In closing, let me give a few examples of what each constituency of this partnership is committed to do. First, African Governments bring the commitment to create the environment for effective decentralized action and to be aggressive in protecting and promoting human rights so that stigma can be reduced. Jim Wolfensohn and Mark Malloch Brown have already emphasized that in the United Nations system, the epidemic has already brought us together in unprecedented ways. But there is still much more to be done. We will mobilize additional and reorient existing resources to respond to the epidemic, to demonstrate concerted action in support of Governments and civil society, including such actions as involving people living with HIV in the response and supporting efforts to reduce mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Thirdly, we expect donor Governments to take concerted action, under nationally developed strategic plans, to mainstream AIDS in setting priorities and to accept the challenge to urgently treble assistance for HIV/AIDS in Africa as a first step for more rational financing of the international response. Several Governments have recently substantially increased these commitments, and with this latest step announced by Vice- President Gore half an hour ago, the United States is the first to have trebled its level of commitment during the last six months. Fourthly, and as also stressed by Vice-President Gore and Mark Malloch Brown, we agreed that the private sector must become involved in a substantial way to act immediately to strengthen workplace and community outreach interventions and, further, to work in concert with Governments to balance the difficult issues of intellectual property rights with the urgent need to develop and make available life-saving drugs and other commodities. Finally, the non-governmental organizations, including religious organizations, have a key role to play in intensifying their work at the front line of the epidemic. Members of the Council, the message that I bring you this morning is therefore one of urgency, but also one of opportunity. The resources are beginning to be mobilized, and the world is responding. But we are now only at the 10 per cent mark. Shifting to 50 and then 75 per cent and upwards must be the commitment of all of us here. In the response to the epidemic, there are two bottom lines. The bottom line for the future is that we must develop and make available affordable vaccines required for preventing HIV infections. That is the bottom line for the future. However, the bottom line for today is that we must do everything in our power to apply what we know works: reducing vulnerability, preventing HIV infection through behaviour change and supporting wide￾scale implementation of efforts to provide care and access to the drugs and services required to prolong and improve life. At the start of this new century, I believe that there are no development problems that more urgently command a collective response from the international community. This is a global problem. It is not and African problem or an Asian problem, but a global problem. The fact that in the first month of the millennium the Security Council sees fit to discuss AIDS in Africa is surely symbolic. I believe that it signals our collective will to stop this epidemic and our pledge to history that we will not turn our backs and let AIDS devastate another generation of young African women and men. The President: I thank Dr. Piot for his inspired leadership and his kind remarks concerning the comments of our Vice-President. We shall now begin the discussion by the members of the Security Council. For those in the audience who do not know the rules, members of the Security Council will speak first. Then, because of the special nature of this meeting, any other Member of the United Nations that wishes to speak is invited to do so. With a certain exception, I will ask the members of the Security Council to follow the same rule that was established so successfully last month by Ambassador Greenstock during his presidency of the Security Council, 12 which was essentially a five-minute rule. Speakers should also try to confine themselves to specific remarks. The exception that I would like to make is, of course, for the three Ministers of Health who have come here from such a great distance to share with us their experiences. I thank the Minister of Health of Namibia for joining us today, and it is now my great honour to give her the floor. Dr. Amathila (Namibia): The most recent open event in the General Assembly took place on World Aids Day. Men, women and children from all walks of life came to pay tribute to those who have fallen victim to this scourge. Some told their own real-life stories and those of their families, and today, at the first meeting of the Security Council for this millennium, the plight of Africa and its fight against HIV/AIDS is being highlighted. I am pleased to note that on 13 January, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will address this Council on the inhuman conditions in which millions of refugees and internally displaced persons in Africa are living. She will no doubt talk about, among other issues, the impact of HIV/AIDS on women and girl refugees in particular. The Executive Director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the head of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the President of the World Bank have given us a detailed analysis of the impact of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Thus, we view today's high-profile meeting not as an end in itself, but as a very important beginning of the focus on the impact of HIV/AIDS in Africa. You have participated personally, Mr. President, in no small measure. That is testimony to your personal commitment and that of your Government to the cause of Africa. Your country has made significant national gains in curbing the spread of HIV/AIDS and improving the quality of life of those already infected. We call on your Government to take the lead in mobilizing the pharmaceutical industry to work with African Governments and the World Health Organization for more affordable access by Africa to life-saving and life-enhancing drugs for the treatment of AIDS. We thank the Secretary-General for his participation. His report on the work of the Organization (A/54/1), submitted to the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth session, was very clear on the impact of HIV/AIDS in Africa and we encourage him to keep up his advocacy. Anything that is a threat to the social and economic development of Africa is, in turn, a threat to its political stability. As long as the HIV/AIDS pandemic continues to grow, political stability and peace will be affected. Due to the incapacity of Governments to effectively deal with the needs of those affected, the anger and frustration will continue to escalate. The social infrastructure, such as hospitals, cannot cope with the many cases coming in. Although it is known that there are drugs that can prolong and improve the quality of life, African Governments cannot afford them. Therefore, in our view, security needs to be visualized as part of a complex of issues affecting the manner in which we perceive and deal with socio￾economic and political problems. It is in this context that we welcome today's meeting. More than 23 million people — whether the statistics indicate 21 million or 23 million is immaterial; we know that it is a huge number — are infected with HIV/AIDS in Africa today. A continent which is home to only 10 per cent of the world's population probably carries now over 70 per cent of the world's total HIV cases. The impact of the social and economic consequences of HIV/AIDS is being felt through the erosion of growth in gross domestic product, especially in the heavily affected countries. This is affecting the labour force, which in turn negatively affects the breadwinners and their families. As a result, the future of children in general, and HIV/AIDS orphans in particular, is compromised. We do not know whether such children will be able to continue with their schooling, because the breadwinners have died. Usually it is the father who dies first, followed shortly afterwards by the mother, and the children are left in the hands of their grandparents. Wherever there is a conflict, sexual violence is used as a weapon of war. Refugees, in particular women and girls fleeing from conflict situations, are at risk of being infected with the virus. It is estimated that 250,000 children between the ages of 7 and 18 years actively participate as child soldiers in armed conflict around the world, and many of them are sexually active. Of course it is not known how many are HIV-positive, but we can assume that a high percentage of them are positive. Let loose in the communities, they perpetrate sexual violence against their captives, thereby further increasing the spread of HIV/AIDS. While the issue of HIV/AIDS is not under the purview of the Security Council, the primary responsibility of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security will contribute in a 13 major way to minimizing the impactof HIV/AIDS in Africa. By effectively addressing conflict situations in Africa, the Security Council will no doubt assist African Governments in devoting more resources to tackling social and economic problems. In this connection, we urge the arms-producing countries to cease providing arms to rebel movements in Africa. It is very important to bring conflict to an end in Africa so that peace and security can become a reality, giving a chance to the African Governments to pay attention to the priority issues of health and social development. Let me say a few words about peacekeeping. At the outset, I would like to salute the peacekeepers for the work they have done and are doing, often at the risk of losing their own lives. In this connection, it is important that the training of the military and police forces covers HIV/AIDS prevention and understanding of how to protect themselves. Peacekeepers, military observers and relief workers need to be well briefed on the implications of HIV-risk behaviour, through education on prevention. The means of protection must also be readily available to such people. In the demobilization of ex-combatants, in particular child soldiers, HIV/AIDS prevention issues need to be highlighted. The demobilization of child soldiers should include psychological counselling and HIV prevention. Let me emphasize that the tragedy of AIDS in southern Africa warrants an emergency response from the international community. HIV/AIDS is a developmental, social and national security issue. African Governments have realized the multidimensional nature of HIV/AIDS and have therefore embarked on a programme of expanded response. This means that HIV/AIDS is everybody's business and no longer just the business of ministries of health and social services. However, those Governments cannot effectively combat HIV/AIDS due to a lack of resources and drugs. Currently, the resources available for the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS are disproportionate to the problem. Estimates have it that out of the $2.5 billion needed in Africa each year, only $165 million is available — I think that Dr. Piot said $150 million, but it does not make that much difference. We therefore call on the international community to make resources available and to subsidize drugs to African Governments. You will agree with me, Mr. President, that it is immoral that the worst-affected continent has the least access to the care and social and economic safety nets that might help families cope with the impact of this epidemic. Africa today has the least access to HIV drugs, but major access to arms. In countries marred by conflicts, Governments are forced by circumstances to channel their resources to the efforts to bring about peace, rather than to caring for the sick. And so thousands of infected persons die without any hope of the treatment that would prolong their lives. The political commitment of African Governments to the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS is quite visible. However, the lack of resources is a real constraint that needs to be addressed by the international community. Even in Namibia, where we allocate over 15 per cent of gross domestic product to health and social services, we have not made an impact on the treatment of HIV/AIDS. The cost of drugs to us is extremely prohibitive. I should mention, however, that as far as social mobilization, awareness and advocacy are concerned, we have made significant progress. I remember going to a village in the farthest corner of Namibia, where I met an old man of whom I asked: “Do you know anything about HIV/AIDS?” He said, “Yes, I have heard, and I keep on telling young people that they must use condoms; but, Doctor, I have not seen a condom myself”. So I left him a condom, as I am sure he was neglected because of his age. I am sure that since then he has been going around with his condom to show the young men: “This is what I am talking about”. Furthermore, the Namibian Government is in the process of establishing a fund for AIDS orphans and pensioners, which our President launched barely two months ago. This is to assist old people, who invariably have to look after the children of their own dead children. Namibia and South Africa are the only countries I know of in Africa that are giving universal grants to all pensioners, regardless of whether they have worked or not. But that pension is meagre and will not be enough to help old people look after orphans. We have therefore set up a fund for orphans and pensioners to help in this regard. African Governments are increasingly urged to invest more resources on HIV/AIDS. But where will these resources come from? Today, half of those infected are children between the ages of 15 and 24. Ninety per cent of those are in Africa, as can be seen from the table. What does this mean for Africa's future? Not many Governments can afford the drugs, and as a result, a 14 difficult choice has to be made between prevention and treatment for those already infected. I would therefore recommend that World AIDS Day be commemorated in a more high-profile manner, consistent with the seriousness of the problem. For example, we would like to propose that activities on World AIDS Day at the United Nations be focused solely on raising awareness about the pandemic. A lot still remains to be done in raising awareness. In May this year, UNAIDS will convene a board meeting in Geneva. The International Partnership against AIDS in Africa is currently being formed, and the Partnership will be launched at that board meeting. Let me strongly echo the call made by the Secretary-General to the international community, “to formulate a response commensurate with the scale of the crisis, led by African Governments but with civil society, the private sector, the United Nations and donor Governments playing a full role”. Furthermore, drug companies have a moral responsibility in this pandemic. We therefore urge them to sell their drugs at subsidized prices to African Governments so we are not left to allow our people to die. As was correctly mentioned, we can at least prolong the life of a mother to make it possible for her to at least see her children through primary school. We therefore need to get these drugs in Africa. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that HIV/AIDS is now the leading cause of death in our countries of southern Africa. Over 50 per cent of hospital beds are occupied by HIV/AIDS patients. Over 60 per cent of paediatric hospital beds are occupied by HIV/AIDS cases. HIV/AIDS in Africa can be prevented, and we have seen the results of our colleagues who started before us. With the provision of drugs, the quality of life of these affected people can be prolonged and enhanced. AIDS has lowered the average life expectancy levels in some of our countries by as much as 10 years. I would like to share with you a measure we have adopted in the field of prevention, namely the letters A-B￾C. A means “Abstinence”; B stands for “Be faithful to one partner” and C means “use Condoms”. This is how we are trying to change the behaviour of our communities. Let us hold hands together to fight the pandemic of HIV/AIDS. Finally, Mr. President, I cannot end without expressing my Government's deep thanks to you for your dedication to this cause. I did not see you when you were in Africa. The timing was bad because we were trying to hold our elections; but I was happy that you were there and I am pleased to meet you here. I want to thank you for this specific and timely initiative you have taken in bringing to the forefront the impact of HIV/AIDS. I hope that this will now be a regular session at the Security Council. Let it not be the first and last time we meet on this issue, but let it be a yearly event so that we may all touch base. The President: Thank you, Madam Minister, for your important statement, your alphabetical A-B-C suggestion and your interesting suggestion about doing a meeting of this sort at least once a year, which in my national capacity I instantly endorse. It is my pleasure now to continue. Because we have such a long list of speakers and we will want to break for lunch in the not-too-distant future, I would hope that the non-ministerial representatives here would keep their remarks as short as possible, so that this afternoon we can have some exchanges of view on what we have heard and how we might work together. Mr. Chowdhury (Bangladesh): As a newly elected member of the Security Council, Bangladesh takes up its responsibility with great humility and a strong sense of commitment and determination. Bangladesh believes it is very fitting for Vice￾President Al Gore of the United States to preside over the first Security Council meeting of the new millennium. His presence here is indicative of the strong commitment of the United States to the United Nations in general and to Africa in particular. Coincidentally, but very appropriately, for the Security Council the twenty-first century is commencing with the presidency of the United States. We commend Ambassador Holbrooke for the initiative of devoting this month to Africa. Bangladesh also expresses its deep appreciation to Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock for his leadership of the Council during the United Kingdom presidency last month, and particularly for holding a major debate on Africa. We thank him and other members of the Council for facilitating the new incoming members' presence at the informal consultations during the month of December. 15 Bangladesh welcomes the initiativeto discuss the impact of AIDS on peace and security in Africa. This is a recognition of the broader dimensions of security, a vision that security in a changed world extends beyond its conventional parameters. It is ultimately human security that we are seeking; every individual — wherever he or she may be — should feel safe and secure. We appreciate this opportunity to speak at the first meeting of the Council on this broad-based topic. A global culture of peace, we believe, can ensure such an all-encompassing security of countries and individuals. AIDS is spreading fast. Its threat is global. It is a threat to an entire generation — indeed, a threat to human civilization as a whole. For much of the developing world, the outlook is grim. For Africa, it is already a catastrophe. Globally there are already 33 million people infected with HIV. Two-thirds of them are in Africa. Last year the disease killed 2.6 million people around the world, more than in any previous year. Most of these deaths occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. Life expectancy in this region has dropped to a level not seen since the 1960s. The AIDS pandemic is devastating many African economies. Soaring death rates among the young are crippling the growth of entire regions. Due to the high cost of AIDS treatment, little is accessible to the poor. AIDS leaves poor societies poorer still, and thus even more vulnerable to infection. Experts project a loss of growth of at least 1.4 per cent per year over the next 20 years. The social impact of AIDS is staggering. Since 1981, over 11 million children have been orphaned, 95 per cent of them in Africa. As Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said, AIDS is taking away not only Africa's present, but also its future. In many sub-Saharan countries, nearly half of the armed forces are affected. Civilian law enforcement is slumping as AIDS takes its toll on its personnel. This has threatened safety, security and law and order both within and beyond national boundaries. African military and civilian police personnel play a crucial role in peacekeeping. Their vulnerability to infection affects the defence of peace. We thank Secretary-General Kofi Annan for his statement this morning and for his proactive leadership in combating AIDS in Africa, as manifested at the meeting held at the United Nations Headquarters last month. The United Nations agencies and civil society organizations, as invaluable partners, deserve our appreciation for their positive work in this area. The World Bank's contribution, under the effective guidance of Jim Wolfensohn, is very much recognized. We thank him in particular for his focus on poverty and development in his statement this morning. Africa itself is leading the counter-attack against AIDS. Its leadership is making a real effort to involve all of society in the battle. Countries like Uganda, Botswana, Lesotho, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Namibia have shown what can be achieved. The threat of AIDS is not confined only to Africa; it is a threat to the global community. The epidemic was a latecomer to Asia and the Pacific, but its spread has been swift. It is predicted that in the years to come, the number of people affected may grow exponentially. In combating the scourge of HIV/AIDS, some measures should get priority attention. First, ongoing efforts need strengthening, with a special emphasis on the young and on children. The target set by the special session of the General Assembly on the five-year review of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) to reduce infection in young people aged 15 to 24 by one quarter before the year 2005 should be foremost in our actions. Secondly, new and sustained public-private partnerships, such as the “Secure the Future” programmes of southern Africa, with the commitment of $100 million for the next five years from the private sector, need to be forged. Thirdly, the scientific community should receive full support to speed up its work to develop effective vaccines. Fourthly, effective treatment should be made available to people at prices that affected societies can afford. Fifthly and finally — and most importantly — adequate resources should be made available to fight the epidemic, to the development of preventive measures, and to mitigate the harm already done. In recent years, as we have seen, most conflicts have been within States. These have causes and consequences. There are both military and non-military threats to 16 security, and the collapse of social fabric and of State structures is undeniably a peace and security concern. A desperate situation can lead to desperate acts. As Peter Piot of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) has remarked, when it comes to Africa, AIDS has killed more than 10 times as many people as armed conflict. Mark Malloch Brown, in his statement this morning, called it “the world's most dangerous insurgency”. To combat this, we need true solidarity and effective strategy, not mere rhetoric. The world will not be a secure place if its women and men do not have security of the individual self. We are glad that recognition has been accorded to a more encompassing dimension of security. We hope that the pioneering initiative of the United States will be pursued by others in justified earnestness. We look forward to discussing other non-military threats to peace and security, including such overriding global priorities as poverty, environmental degradation, drugs, organized crime and so on. The world has changed, and the time has come to extend the concept of security as well. The President: I would like to thank Mr. Wolfensohn once again for joining us for the first time in the history of the Security Council and the World Bank. I hope that the Security Council will invite him to join us again. On behalf of the entire Security Council, we thank him for his important statement today and for his contribution to the important effort that we are discussing. Mr. Dejammet (France) (spoke in French): Taking into consideration your repeated appeals for brevity, Mr. President, I shall shorten the usual compliments that it seems to me should be addressed to the Vice-President of the United States and to you for having organized this meeting, as well as to Mr. Wolfensohn, Mr. Malloch Brown and Dr. Piot for participating in our work. I also believe it is pointless to repeat all the statistics that have already been given this morning and that will probably be reiterated during our debate attesting to the seriousness of the effects of AIDS. We wish simply to thank the United States for having taken the initiative to organize this meeting. What we have already heard clearly demonstrates that the AIDS epidemic, in terms of its social and economic effects, is indeed related to the instability that can afflict African countries and consequently has a direct bearing on security issues dealt with by this Council. Therefore, I shall not emphasize the statistics, and at the same time I regret that those that have been given or projected on the screen dealt with a limited number of countries. In this regard, I would like to thank Dr. Piot for having corrected or supplemented our information by also mentioning the positive aspects resulting from the efforts of certain countries. He cited Senegal as one such country, and I believe he was perfectly right to do so. We wish to recall, with regard to the picture sketched for us, that if we are not careful and if we do not indeed follow up the appeal we are addressing to the international community today, a lasting health, economic and political crisis in Africa will win out over the sustainable development strategies that we are trying to promote. Therefore, everything we do here at the United Nations, in other chambers besides that of the Security Council and in other international forums will be reduced to nothing if we do not try to clearly and courageously confront the problems raised by the AIDS epidemic. But let us devote ourselves to the positive actions that can be taken. We must mobilize our efforts at the economic level, as was mentioned earlier by the Minister of Namibia. I do not wish to dwell on that; I simply wish to recall that we are dealing with a general undertaking that should include appeals for all forms of aid, in particular to official development assistance and indeed for debt relief endeavours. However, I would like to focus on what we can do more specifically and directly to combat AIDS and to recall that in this regard France, which has the honour of being the leading donor of public and private funds to Africa, has been aware since the beginning of the 1980s of the need to render very concrete assistance to the struggle against HIV/AIDS. Over the last decade, 600 million French francs, or approximately $100 million or more have been mobilized under the French fund alone for aid and cooperation, through 60 projects focused primarily on prevention, safety of transfusions, medical oversight, support for associations that are active in this area and support for applied research. Aside from these mostly public efforts, there are also the French contributions to multilateral agencies, the contributions made by our embassies and contributions linked to decentralized cooperation carried out by local, regional and municipal bodies in France. Altogether this amounts to approximately FF 100 million that France allocates annually to the struggle against HIV/AIDS in the developing countries. 17 However, we are aware that those efforts and the efforts of all donors cannot alone make it possible to cope with the challenge of the epidemic. This is why we support the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) initiative of the International Partnership against AIDS in Africa, which is designed to strengthen the mobilization of the entire international community and in which France intends to actively participate. It is also in this spirit that we have hoped to see the establishment of an international fund for therapeutic solidarity, a fund that would receive public and private contributions and that would be designed to promote better access for populations in the developing countries to treatment against AIDS, including anti-retroviruses. Aside from its direct benefits, such an initiative should contribute by giving new hope to populations of the countries of the South stricken by this disease. We cannot avoid the issue of access for developing countries to treatment and to a future vaccine when 23 million Africans are already infected. AIDS highlights the enormous gap between the rich and the most disadvantaged countries and creates almost unbearable inequalities because of its effects on the most essential right: the right to life. As was asked by the French Minister of Health, Dr. Kouchner, during the special session of the General Assembly devoted to the follow-up to the Cairo Conference in July 1999, how long will we be able to accept the fact that the treatment is in the North and the patients in the South? This is, in brief, what the Namibian Minister recalled earlier with great conviction, I believe. We cannot focus solely on prevention. Twenty-three million Africans are already infected. We also need to concern ourselves with the issue of treatment, and this is expensive. Hence the interest in this fund for therapeutic solidarity. To make progress in this area, we need to mobilize funds and to have the courage to recognize that, yes, this will cost money if we do not wish to limit ourselves to prevention, but also to try to provide care and treatment. The pharmaceutical industry must also more systematically be able to propose to the developing countries, to the African countries, modified financial conditions facilitating the provision of guarantees regarding the lack of parallel or consecutive exports to the developed countries. There really are specific initiatives to be taken. In this regard, we believe the United Nations could usefully organize joint action on this question that would bring together manufacturers, the donor countries and the recipient countries. This is one of the specific initiatives that we would like to see as a result of this debate. This also seems to us to be an opportune time to draw up a master listing, under the aegis of UNAIDS, of all the bilateral and multilateral actions currently being taken in order to ensure the cohesion and geographic and medical-social complementarity of such actions. As Dr. Piot said earlier, we have seen that some countries have avoided the spread of this pandemic. There must have been reasons for this, and we should perhaps look for further cooperation in our bilateral and multilateral actions. Finally, all of the donors could commit themselves to considering each of the possible actions for cooperation regarding HIV/AIDS and could examine each of these actions to see how to reduce the impact of the epidemic and strengthen prevention and access to care. In conclusion, I believe that we should emphasize the key role that the Secretary-General can play in this area. Once again, we would like to express our thanks for his presence and participation in this debate, and for having set its tone. The Secretary-General has the political and moral authority to continue to keep our collective awareness on alert in order to maintain the vigilance of each country regarding this subject in order to plot our course and to see to it that we act in conformity with the very generous words that we are hearing today. Thus, I believe that, thanks to the commitment that the Secretary-General has shown as a moral authority and, I stress, as a political authority — thanks to that commitment and to the efforts that we will be called upon to make today because of his initiative — in this way we might find it possible to drive back this disease and to provide prospects for the genuine sustainable development of the African countries. The President: Our next speaker is the Ambassador of the Netherlands. However, procedurally speaking, I would like to consult the Council for a minute. Under the rules of the Security Council, Ministers of Security Council members take precedence, and that is why we began with the Vice-President of the United States and the Minister of Namibia. However, under those same rules, Security Council members have the right to speak before Ministers of other countries that are not members. 18 In the last few minutes, I have received several notes from Permanent Representatives of African countries, pointing out to me that they feel it would be appropriate for us to break into the procedural order and allow the Ministers of Health of Uganda and Zimbabwe to join the meeting and speak prior to the next scheduled speakers, which are the representatives of the Netherlands, Argentina, Canada, Malaysia, the United Kingdom, Tunisia, Ukraine, Mali and Jamaica, and then, under the rules of the Security Council, Uganda and Zimbabwe. I have an informal proposal that the next group of speakers yield to the two Ministers from Africa, and I would ask — and I know this is a bit unusual, because we normally would adjourn and go into executive session, but we obviously cannot do that — if any of the speakers would be willing to yield so that we could hear the Ministers of Health who have travelled so far at the personal requests of their Presidents. I have spoken to both President Museveni and President Mugabe personally about this, and they each told me how important their Ministers' speeches are. I would ask if Council members would agree to invite the Ministers from Uganda and Zimbabwe to join us at the table and speak out of order. Would this be acceptable to representatives? I wish to thank Council Members for their indulgence in this change of procedure. At the invitation of the President, Dr. Kiyonga (Uganda) and Dr. Stamps (Zimbabwe) took seats at the Council table. The President: It is now my honour to call on the Minister of Health of Uganda. Dr. Kiyonga (Uganda): I would like to start by thanking you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to address the Council on this very important subject, HIV/AIDS. In the interest of brevity, I will try as much as possible to summarize my speech. Since Uganda has been cited as one of the countries that has made some progress, I think it is only fair to members of the Security Council that I give a bird's eye view of the country, as well as the efforts that we have made that have led to some modest changes. Uganda has a population of about 20 million people, with a growth rate of 2.5 per cent annually. Most of our people live in the rural areas; only about 12 per cent of the population are urban dwellers. Uganda is one of the poorest countries in the world, with a gross domestic product per capita of $300. Although we have made progress over the last 10 years in growth and macroeconomic stabilization, our situation remains very difficult as far as resources are concerned. The average life expectancy has been drawn down by AIDS, and now stands at about 47 years. The infant mortality rate is still very high at 97, and the maternal mortality rate still stands at 504 per 100,000 live births. Access to health care is generally very poor, and only 50 per cent of our population are within five kilometres' radius from some form of health facility. The AIDS pandemic hit our country as far back as 1983, and we estimate that about 2 million of our people are HIV/AIDS- positive. Of these, 92 per cent are adults, and 12 per cent are children under 12 years old. The urban populations are much more affected than their rural counterparts. As has been said by other countries, there is a higher prevalence of HIV infection among young females as compared to males. This, coupled with the predominance of heterosexual transmission, has implications for mother-to-child transmission of HIV. It is estimated that with a national seroprevalence of 10 per cent in Uganda, and a mother-to-child transmission rate of 25 per cent, a total of 25,000 children every year are born who are already HIV-infected. The HIV epidemic in our country has contributed significantly to the re-emergence of tuberculosis, which we had otherwise controlled. About 60 per cent of the tuberculosis patients in the country are HIV-infected. We have also noticed that people who are HIV-positive and tuberculosis-infected tend to respond less satisfactorily to tuberculosis treatment. HIV/AIDS threatens our security and our development. The country has already lost more than half a million people to this disease over the last 10 years. A large number of children have been orphaned due to HIV/AIDS. These children are now being cared for by their weak and aged grandparents or fellow children. AIDS is affecting the most active members of the society, including highly skilled people, such as doctors, engineers and administrators. HIV/AIDS therefore threatens to reverse the socio-economic gains made in the country in the recent past. What has been our response to this pandemic within the country? President Museveni's leadership and the 19 commitment to control the epidemichas provided the platform for a strong coalition of national and international forces to fight HIV/AIDS in Uganda. Accordingly, academic, political, religious and cultural leaders and communities have formed a broad response to this disease. Sexual AIDS-control programmes have been established in key sectors of government, including the armed forces, the educational sector, the agricultural sector and the ministry responsible for labour affairs. Church and other non-governmental organizations, as well as community-based organizations, have made useful contributions to the fight against HIV/AIDS. By 1994, over 4,000 non-governmental organizations had been registered to provide programmes for HIV/AIDS care, prevention and, often, support. One of the key interventions that we have used has been the high-profile public-health education carried out through radio, television, drama, songs and billboards. It is important to mention at this stage that the people in Uganda living with HIV/AIDS have made significant contributions to this approach by openly declaring their serostatus and advising the rest of the population to avoid the infection. Under the drug-access programme sponsored by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), which began in 1997, only about 1,000 Ugandans have benefited from HIV/AIDS anti-retroviral treatment. This is mainly due to the high cost of drugs. It is estimated that a monthly supply of drugs costs about $12,000 per patient per year. With the estimated 2 million Ugandans infected with HIV, universal access would cost us $24 billion. This is in contrast to our annual budget of $2 billion. Clearly, this is unaffordable to a poor population like Uganda's. Although some efforts have been made towards support programmes for people living with HIV/AIDS in health-care facilities and in the community, large gaps remain. The ultimate goal of these programmes is to restore hope and to encourage the sick to seek health care. The political will that I talked about and the openness that has emerged about HIV/AIDS in our country have contributed immensely to Uganda's participation in HIV research efforts. International research collaborations with the best United States and European institutions have helped build research capacity in Uganda. There has emerged a core of well-trained research scientists in epidemiology, behavioural sciences, HIV virology, immunology and molecular biology. These scientists have characterized the epidemiology of HIV and the behavioural risk factors contributing to its spread. As a result of these research efforts, a number of well-designed cohorts have been established and, in addition, every effort is being made to strengthen HIV/AIDS research laboratories within the country. Recently, research in Uganda has made a promising breakthrough in the search for a drug to prevent mother￾to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS. The best United States scientists, working with their colleagues in Uganda, have determined that a drug called Nevirapin has the potential of reducing mother-to-child transmission by a factor of 50 per cent in comparison to AZT. With this efficacy, it is estimated in the case of Uganda that 12,500 babies could be born free of HIV infection. Nevirapin is estimated to cost about $4 per woman for the drug alone, not counting the administration and supply costs. This contrasts sharply with the cost of $150-$200 for treatment of the mother-baby pair with the AZT that is currently being used in the developed world. Use of Nevirapin therefore promises to be the most appropriate and sustainable strategy for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission in resource-poor countries like Uganda. Uganda, in its efforts to join the rest of the world in search of a solution to this disease, has started to test vaccine candidates. This, again, has been in collaboration with the best scientists in the United States of America. During the course of this meeting, the Council has heard that Uganda has made some breakthroughs and I now take this opportunity to try to cite just three incidences in which we think Uganda has had some success. The first has been in respect of behaviour change. The Ugandan demographic and health survey of 1995 established that close to universal awareness about HIV/AIDS had been achieved in Uganda. In that respect, we have observed that a large number of our people are now sticking to one partner and also using condoms, which, at the beginning of the pandemic, were considered taboo to talk about in our country. Now, however, condoms are available everywhere and are being used liberally. As to our second achievement, we have been able to destigmatize HIV/AIDS. The evidence for this is finding that the people living with HIV/AIDS themselves are standing up and declaring their serostatus, relating their stories and advising fellow citizens to avoid the pitfalls into which they fell. Many people are turning up to be tested so that they can know their seropositivity. As a result of this behavioural change and the destigmatization that we have observed, between 1991 and now we have 20 observed declining prevalences of the disease in our country. That notwithstanding, we still see huge challenges ahead. First, the epidemic is still very high at a seroprevalence rate of 10 per cent and 2 million people being infected. But clearly, we want to move ahead and deepen the programme. One way is to further deepen behaviour change. We have seen that the long-established cultural norms in some of our ethnic groups do favour transmission of HIV/AIDS and we want to strengthen the programme so that this behavioural change can be enhanced. We lack resources. We are a poor country. Both the extended-family and government support systems are being overwhelmed by caring for orphans and the people living with AIDS. As the Council has already been told, the cost of providing anti-retroviral drugs is unaffordable in a country like ours and we do hope that the international community can come to our assistance in this respect. We are glad to indicate that Nevirapin is likely to stem the transmission from mothers to children and our country intends, with international assistance, to move very fast to start using this drug on a wide scale. In the final analysis, I must emphasize that what will ultimately stem this pandemic is the finding of an effective and low-cost vaccine against HIV/AIDS. International solidarity on this matter must therefore be called into action. In conclusion, I want to inform fellow representatives that Uganda's huge HIV/AIDS epidemic threatens national development and may worsen the poverty situation. Affordable measures in the control and prevention of HIV/AIDS have been applied in our country. The high cost of current treatment available in the developed countries cannot be afforded by our country and people. We believe that finding an effective and affordable vaccine offers the only feasible alternative to the drugs. In the meantime, however, we are calling upon the international community to assist us in supporting the orphans and people living with HIV/AIDS. On behalf of President Museveni and the Government of Uganda, I therefore wish to express our gratitude to Vice-President Al Gore for the support he has announced towards the fight against HIV/AIDS. I also wish to take this opportunity to call upon the rest of the international community, those members of the human race who are better advantaged, to join this solidarity and help the less￾advantaged members of the world. The President: May I note that, while the Minister of Health of Uganda has been here with us in New York, President Clinton's special adviser for AIDS, Sandy Thurman, is in his country today meeting with his colleagues and President. We are therefore most grateful that he is here today. The next speaker is the Minister of Health and Child Welfare of Zimbabwe. I invite him to make his statement. Dr. Stamps (Zimbabwe): The world has recently been through a highly expensive and largely uncoordinated exercise to eliminate the risk of some people losing some money, some places losing some data and some people disrupting their busy schedules. To some of us, in the real world, this only induces a sense of wonder that intelligent beings in the metropolitan countries can be so oblivious, so colour-blind, to what has happened in the African continent over the past 15 years. Some $600 billion is estimated to have been spent on the millennium bug — a largely irrelevant threat, certainly, to us — while the world at large has laconically observed the exponential growth of the HIV epidemic in areas not materially linked to the growth of the international economy. Now, with respect, ladies and gentlemen, comrades and friends, the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost. Africa may be the world's largest man-made island, as a result of the Suez Canal, but man's insatiable desire to explore and exploit distant and unknown, not to say dangerous, destinations will always overcome any cordon sanitaire, any island mentality or any sane or logical precautions that science, medicine or propriety may prescribe. So it is futile for the global community to turn its back on the ethnic destruction which the current epidemic is wreaking in my country and my continent. We have become used, even inured, to the verbal abuse to which some of our leaders have been subjected. We have accepted the repeated canard from international agencies that, except for one country, there is no political leadership in Africa on the issue of AIDS. Yet, surprisingly, many of us, my own country included, have achieved the impossible. We have induced our own populations to understand that the exercise of a completely normal, necessary and entirely pleasurable human function can have fatal consequences. I note from the manner in which the Western entertainment industry, so-called, promotes the hedonistic fruits of promiscuity, with no intimation of the potentially fatal results, and the rapid growth of the numbers of young, northern 21 hemisphere women who are becoming HIV-positive, that metropolitan countries have something to learn from us. In Zimbabwe the rates of sexually transmitted infections for individuals peaked in 1990 and have been going down since then. The rates of new HIV infection peaked in 1995 and have been going down since then. Zimbabwe, nevertheless, is currently experiencing one of the highest prevalence rates of HIV seropositivity in the world, but of course the rate is derived from extrapolation of sentinel surveillance data, and the sites were chosen originally with a view to detecting newly arising infections early. Thus, antenatal populations, STD clinic attenders and hospital in-patients form the main cohorts of our national statistical construct. Whether these rates will change as a result of our national Voluntary Counselling and Testing centres, where healthy people seek to determine their HIV status, is information that is eagerly awaited. Suffice it to say that the small cohort of voluntary blood donors — about 8,000 — has consistently shown very much lower rates of HIV seropositivity, and these rates are progressively declining as well, showing a dramatic reduction in seroconversion rates since 1994 and indicating that positive behaviour change is realistically achievable. Zimbabwe, uniquely in Africa, has screened all donated blood for HIV since September 1985, when the first case was identified in our country. By the end of 1999, the National AIDS Policy for Zimbabwe had, after three and a half years of wide consultation throughout the country, been completed, and the statute establishing the National AIDS Council, which involves all stakeholders, was approved by Parliament. The fiscus introduced an AIDS levy at the rate of 3 per cent on income tax and corporate tax to provide secure financing for the activities of the Council. A previous attempt to create a cross-sectoral national AIDS council foundered because it depended too heavily on donor support and because of inadequate inputs from the Ministry of Health, as well as having no executive function. This innovation was launched by our President on World AIDS Day, 1 December 1999, at a day-long convention in the capital, attended by more than 5,000 people. Particularly challenging were the presentations and requests from school-age children developed by the Children's Parliament, which had held its latest session in September. The challenge now is to deal with the epidemic effectively, consistently and fully. No country, let alone one undergoing extreme financial distraint as a result of flawed macroeconomic policies, adverse terms of trade, an economic reform programme which has left just about every Zimbabwean worse off and a debt service burden consuming more than 38 per cent of the Government budget, interest rates alone being four times the allocation to the total health budget — no country can carry the weight of the health, economic and social effects of the devastation wrought by AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. This is why we welcome the concern shown by the Security Council, through its current President, the United States of America, and the opportunity to present not only our statistics, but also a few of our achievements and our proposals, to this highly influential body, confident that our voice will be heard. We need to examine and correct those obstructions to our provision for this disaster. In Zimbabwe we lose nearly 1,000 people a week to HIV/AIDS; 15 per cent of those are children under five who have contracted it through their parents; 27 per cent of expenditure in our health institutions is in treating, usually unsuccessfully, HIV-related conditions; we have no access to modern therapies; breastfeeding is universally practised, and access to what the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) calls acceptable alternatives is not feasible for any but a few well-off urban families. The question we ask is, is this merely lack of understanding or a new form of racial discrimination, another ethnic cleansing process? The rich nations rail extensively against the mistreatment of two journalists in my country, an event we have admitted to be judged in court, and yet we are supposed to accept that withholding available therapies from those who need them is not an offence against human rights, the right to health being one of the paramount, universal rights. The disease affects everyone — poor, rich; urban, rural; employee, employer, unemployed; educated, ignorant; married, single; young, old; resident, tourist. As Mary Fisher, a wealthy socialite infected by her husband, succinctly pointed out at the United States of America's Republican National Convention in Houston some years ago, “HIV asks only one thing of those it attacks: Are you human?'” I thank the Council for listening. The President: Thank you for your appearance here, Mr. Minister. We hope you will remain for the continuing discussion this afternoon. 22 In view of the lateness of the hour, and with gratitude for the extreme patience of the next speakers on the list, who are the Security Council members — in order, the Netherlands, Argentina, Canada, Malaysia, the United Kingdom, Tunisia, Ukraine, Mali and Jamaica — if they find it acceptable, I propose that we suspend the meeting until 2.30 this afternoon. The meeting was suspended at 1 p.m. 23