UN General Assembly
69th Session
Third Committee
18 November 2014
UN 총회
제69차 회기
제3위원회
2014. 11. 18.
STATUS OF ACTION ON DRAFT PROPOSALS
결의안에 대한 ... 상황
|
Symbol 문서기호 |
Agenda Item 의제 안건 |
Title 제목 |
Main Sponsor 제안국 |
Intro
|
PBIs
|
Action
|
|
68 (c) |
Situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
조선민주주의인민공화국에서의 인권상황 |
Italy (on behalf of the EU) and Japan
이탈리아 (EU를 대표하여) 및 일본 |
42nd Mtg 06-Nov (Italy)
제42차 회의 2014. 11. 6. (이탈리아) |
None
없음 |
| |
|
None
없음 |
Adopted by Vote: 47th Mtg 18-Nov
표결에 의한 가결: 찬성 111표/반대 19표/기권 55표 제47차 회의 2014. 11. 18. | |||||
|
68 (c) |
Amendment to A/C.3/69/L.28
A/C.3/69/L.28에 대한 수정안 |
Cuba
쿠바 |
|
None
없음 |
Rejected by Vote: 46th Mtg 18-Nov
표결에 의한 부결: 찬성 40표/반대 77표/기권 50표 제46차 회의 2014. 11. 18. | |
General Assembly
69th Session
Third Committee
18 November 2014
UN총회
제69차 회기
제3위원회
2014. 11. 18.
[46th Meeting/제46차 회의]
[47th Meeting/제47차 회의]
[Meetings Coverage and Press Releases/회의취재 및 보도자료]
18 November 2014
GA/SHC/4122
Intensely Debating Targeted Country Reviews, Third Committee Approves Draft Texts on Iran, Syria, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Sixty-ninth session,
46th & 47th Meetings (AM & PM)
Dialogue, Not Politically Driven Actions, Triggers Human Rights Advancements, Delegates Hear During Day-Long Discussions
Differences on human rights issues should be resolved through constructive dialogue and not confrontational politically motivated actions, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) heard today as it concluded its discussion on the Human Rights Report and took action on a package of draft resolutions on human rights questions and situations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Syria and Iran.
During a heated debate on a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which was approved by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 19 against, with 55 abstentions, many delegates voiced strong positions against the text. Of particular concern were operative paragraphs 7 and 8.
By the terms of operative paragraph 7, the General Assembly would acknowledge the commission’s finding that the body of testimony gathered and the information received provide reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed in the Democratic People’s Republic. The latter operative paragraph would have the Assembly decide to submit the report of the commission of inquiry to the Security Council, and encourages the Council to consider the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the commission and take appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through consideration of referral of the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible for acts that the commission has said may constitute crimes against humanity.
Prior to voting on that draft text, the Committee rejected a draft resolution, by a recorded vote of 40 in favour to 77 against, with 50 abstentions. That draft text, tabled by Cuba, contained a proposal to replace the two abovementioned paragraphs with the a text that would have the Assembly decide to adopt a new cooperative approach to the consideration of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that will enable: the establishment of dialogues by representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with States and groups of States interested in the issue; the development of technical cooperation between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; and the visit of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the country.
Ensuing discussions saw a range of positions among delegates. Emphasizing that human rights should not be a pretext for political gains as country-specific resolutions undermined state sovereignty, a representative of Venezuela said the focus should be on taking a constructive approach to human rights issues.
Representing a view held by a number of countries and the European Union, Japan’s representative said the Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry had submitted an unprecedented and historic report on the human rights situation in the country, where systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations were being committed.
Rejecting those claims as well as the draft resolution, a delegate of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said the Commission’s report was a compilation of groundless political allegations and had no credibility as an official United Nations document. Ecuador’s representative said country-specific resolutions did not improve human rights situations, calling on all countries to make positive contributions to human rights mechanisms.
Representatives of India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia said that they preferred constructive dialogue that respected the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, which was the reason their delegations had decided to abstain on the vote.
Similar points were raised when the Committee approved a draft text on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, by a vote of 78 in favour to 35 against, with 69 abstentions. Agreeing with the Non-Aligned Movement’s position, a number of speakers said the use of country-specific resolutions violated the principles of non-selectivity and objectivity based on the United Nations Charter. Indeed, China’s representative said country-specific resolutions jeopardized trust and provoked confrontation among Member States. However, Canada’s representative noted that there were extremely troubling developments in the human rights situation of Iran that had justified the draft text.
Iran’s representative said the draft text ignored the readiness of his country to cooperate with the United Nations human rights mechanisms as well as its readiness to report and implement recommendations received through the Council’s universal periodic review. Politically motivated vendettas were counterproductive and pointless, he said.
(...)
Background
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this morning to continue and conclude its general discussion on the report of the Human Rights Council (documents A/69/53 and A/69/53/Add.1). For background, see Press Release GA/SHC/4121.
(...)
Under its agenda item on human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives, the Committee would take action on a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1) and amendments on the aforementioned draft text contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63.
(...)
Statements
(...)
Right of Reply
(...)
Introductions of and Action on Draft Resolutions
(...)
The Committee then turned to its agenda item on the situation of human rights and reports of the special rapporteurs, first taking up draft texts on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
A representative of Cuba, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that politicization and double standards were evident in the adoption of resolutions against countries that were part of the Movement. The universal periodic review mechanism was the primary tool for considering human rights issues and such discussions should take place in an atmosphere of constructive dialogue. The continued selectivity of some resolutions that targeted specific countries had violated the principles of universality and objectivity. He called for all countries to vote against such politically motivated resolutions.
The Committee then took up a draft text on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1), introduced by Italy’s representative, on behalf of the European Union and Japan.
Regarding a proposed amendment to “L.28/Rev.1”, contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63, Cuba’s representative said that his country wished to maintain the first part of the proposed amendment. Having said that, he added, Cuba would vote against the resolution. Cuba was not trying to prevent the Council from looking at the report of the Commission of Inquiry. Rather, his delegation wished to take a principled position on the matter. A number of delegates had referred to the trigger mechanism by which the Human Rights Council was becoming a tool for some countries, who were not interested in dialogue, to use to attack other countries. The resolution was being used to establish a pattern that would permanently endanger all developing countries. Cuba called for a greater spirit of cooperation and an opportunity for the country in question to clarify matters. “We are trying to ensure that a precedent is not being set here,” he stressed.
Making a general statement, a representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reiterated his delegation’s support for the statement delivered by Cuba’s representative. He said that his country had consistently maintained its commitment to promoting and protecting its people’s rights and had fulfilled its obligations by taking sincere measures. Unfortunately, he said, the European Union and Japan had chosen to seek confrontation by enforcing a draft text that had no relevance whatsoever.
Also making a general statement, a representative of China said that his country had maintained that differences on human rights issues should be resolved through constructive dialogue. China was opposed to making human rights a pretext for political gains. The Council was not the right forum for dealing with such issues and China would support the amendment [“L.63”] tabled by Cuba.
Italy’s representative said that the amendment was not agreeable to the co-sponsors and, therefore, his delegation called for a vote on the amendment.
Japan’s representative also called for a vote on the amendment.
A representative of Belarus expressed support for the Non-Aligned Movement and said that her country rejected resolutions that had resulted in interferences in the internal affairs of a country. Country-specific resolutions, such as the one currently before the Committee, undermined sovereignty and, therefore, Belarus would vote in favour of Cuba’s amendment.
A representative of Venezuela said that his delegation supported the proposed amendment. The focus should be on taking a constructive approach to human rights issues. As a result, his country did not support politically motivated draft resolutions.
A representative of the Russian Federation said that the draft resolution was not a balanced document and the amendment proposed by Cuba would give it a more balanced nature. He reiterated his delegation’s opposition of country-specific resolutions. “This method of work is ineffective and is only likely to exacerbate conflict between Member States,” he concluded.
A representative of South Africa expressed support for the Cuban proposal and said the draft resolution was in itself contradictory. Politicization and referring matters to the Security Council were two issues of concern, he stressed, adding that the Security Council did not need to be advised by the General Assembly to discuss any issue related to peace and security.
Italy’s representative, also making a general statement before the vote on “L.63”, said that a lack of accountability at the national level left no option but to carry the issue to the international level. He pointed out that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had shown no willingness to cooperate with the human rights mechanisms.
In a general statement, Japan’s representative stated that there were systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Therefore, his delegation could not agree with the amendment proposed by Cuba, which he said was a huge step backwards.
A representative of Iran said that the draft resolution could create a dangerous precedent. Paragraphs 7 and 8 were against the United Nations Charter and the principle of cooperation. The Security Council was not the place for considering human rights issues, she said. For its part, Iran would vote in favour of the amendment.
The United States representative, speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that her delegation was opposed to the proposed amendment, which would strip the resolution of crucial language regarding accountability. The United States had listened to recent overtures for dialogue by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, she said, “but we have heard this before.” The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must stop committing human rights violations instead of offering words, she stressed, calling on all Member States to vote against the amendment.
A representative of Albania, also speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that the amendment would eliminate two important paragraphs based on the fact that the Commission of Inquiry had not made a visit to the country. But as the Commission itself had reported, despite numerous efforts, the Commission had received no response from the country. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a country with a dark past, he said, and its violations had no parallel in the contemporary world. He invited all countries to vote against the amendment.
A representative of Switzerland, speaking on behalf of Australia, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, said they would vote against the amendment proposed by Cuba and encouraged all Member States to do so.
A representative of Ecuador, also speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that the position of Ecuador on the amendment did not prejudice his country’s principled position on human rights. “We reject human rights violations wherever they occur,” he stressed. Nevertheless paragraphs 7 and 8 ran counter to the principle of cooperation in human rights. Therefore, Ecuador would vote in favour of the proposed amendment.
Taking action, the Committee then rejected the draft amendment “L.63” by a recorded vote of 40 in favour to 77 against, with 50 abstentions.
Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, Uruguay‘s representative said that her country had decided to co-sponsor the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. While Uruguay supported the work of the Commission of Inquiry, her country understood that the approval of that resolution [“L.28/Rev.1”] would not constitute a precedent in terms of referring issues to the Security Council.
Next the Committee turned to a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1).
Japan’s representative said the Commission of Inquiry had submitted an unprecedented and historic report on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The findings were based on public hearings involving more than 80 victims and on 240 confidential interviews with witnesses, he said, which had concluded that systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations were being committed. One of the cases identified was the abduction of persons from foreign countries, he said, urging the secure and immediate return of those abductees and for those responsible for human rights violations to be held to account.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea‘s representative said that his delegation was profoundly grateful to those delegations that had supported the amendment [“L.63”]. Turning to the draft resolution under consideration [L.28/Rev.1”], he rejected it categorically and said that it had no relevance to genuine human rights protection. The report of the Commission of Inquiry was based on fabricated testimonies by a handful of defectors who had fled the country after committing crimes. The report was a compilation of groundless political allegations and had no credibility as an official United Nations document. His country had consistently prioritized dialogue, but the European Union and Japan were provoking confrontation by pushing ahead the draft resolution. People around the world remembered how the United States unleashed a “war against Yugoslavia” in the name of “humanitarian intervention”. The sponsors of the draft should be held responsible for destroying the opportunity for human rights cooperation, he said, calling on all Member States to vote against the draft.
Syria’s representative, speaking before the vote and associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, expressed regret that some States had imposed resolutions for political reasons. Some States had used pressure on others, threatening the foundations of their relations and destroying the common understanding on human rights, he added. He rejected the selective approach taken and efforts made to interfere in the affairs of other States, he said, describing them as actions that were incompatible with the United Nations Charter. Politicized resolutions were creating fewer opportunities to reinforce human rights around the world, he said, noting that the universal periodic review was the only mechanism to analyse human rights. He said his delegation would vote against the resolution.
Also speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, Iran’s representative said that the practice of country-specific resolutions and the exploitation of that mechanism for political ends were violations of the United Nations Charter. Her delegation would vote against all country-specific resolutions.
Also speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, Cuba’s representative said that his delegation had maintained a principled position against country-specific resolutions, especially when they had targeted developing countries. The application of double standards in considering human rights issues was what led to the disintegration of the Human Rights Commission. The Council and the universal periodic review provided a mechanism for genuine dialogue on human rights issues. His delegation would not be complicit in referring that issue to the Security Council and the International Criminal Court.
Also speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, a representative of Belarus said country-specific resolutions were not in line with the United Nations Charter and principles. The sponsors of such resolutions should not impose their own vision of implementing human rights, she added, saying her delegation would vote against the resolution.
Venezuela’s representative said he did not support politically motivated resolutions, as they were violations of the United Nations Charter. The practice of adopting politically motivated resolutions that were country-specific ignored the principle impartiality that should govern human rights mechanisms, he added. The submission of politically motivated resolutions was undermining the mandate of the Human Rights Council, he said, underlining that his delegation would vote against the resolution.
A representative of Ecuador reaffirmed the validity of the universal periodic review as the sole mechanism to analyse human rights situations as it was carried out in an equal and non-political footing. Targeting some States through country-specific resolutions did not improve the human rights situation and did not contribute to dialogue, he added, calling on all countries to make positive contributions to human rights mechanisms. He expressed his solidarity with the victims of human rights abuses and said Ecuador had abstained each year on the vote. However, the current draft resolution was not consistent and his delegation would, therefore, vote against it.
The Committee then approved the draft text by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 19 against, with 55 abstentions.
Speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of India said that his delegation had abstained from voting on the resolution as a whole. India had voted in favour of the amendment proposed by Cuba. India was also unable to sign the statute of the International Criminal Court because the statute did not allow the Court to be free from political interference. It also gave the Security Council powers that went beyond international laws. In the current resolution, operative paragraphs 7 and 8 were the very reasons that had prevented India from joining the Rome Statute. It was unfortunate that matters relating to human rights had been taken to a vote. The United Nations should be a venue for cooperation on this matter, not confrontation.
Speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Pakistan said that as a firm believer in the universality of human rights, his country emphasized that efforts to advance the agenda of human rights at the global level should be pursued in a spirit of dialogue and cooperation. Human rights violations were not confined to a single country. Pakistan was opposed to the practice of “naming and shaming” through country-specific resolutions. Referring matters to the International Criminal Court would further complicate the situation. Therefore, Pakistan had abstained from the vote.
Indonesia’s representative, speaking in explanation of position after the vote, said that the resolution could have been adopted without a vote as in the past years. There was a window of opportunity to achieve a consensus, but a lack of willingness from relevant parties had prevented that. His country recognized the importance of the Human Rights Council and of dialogue in addressing human rights issues. Therefore, his delegation had abstained from the vote.
Speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Myanmar said that his delegation, as a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, was opposed to country-specific resolutions. The universal periodic review process was the most dependable and uncontroversial mechanism for advancing human rights around the world. In line with that principled position, Myanmar had voted against the resolution.
Also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Thailand said that her delegation had voted in favour of the draft resolution due to a concern for the worsening human rights situation, as reported by the Special Rapporteur. She welcomed the willingness of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to work with the human rights mechanism and receive the visit of the Special Rapporteur. She raised concerns on access to food, saying humanitarian assistance should be provided to all people without conditions. Despite its vote in favour of the draft text, she reaffirmed her support for genuine dialogue and positive engagement with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
A representative of Zimbabwe, also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, said that she did not agree with country-specific resolutions nor that the Security Council was the appropriate body to discuss human rights issues. She had voted in favour of the amendment of the text as she had rejected the precedent that would have been set by the operational paragraphs under discussion.
Also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Malaysia said that he preferred constructive dialogue that respected the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. As the text of the draft resolution called for the Security Council to refer the situation of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court, Malaysia believed constructive dialogue should take precedence before any punitive measures were sought, which was the reason his delegation had decided to abstain on the vote
Also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, Brazil’s representative said that his delegation had voted in favour of the resolution. The text had recognized that while the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had made progress in a deeper engagement with the United Nations human rights system, there was room for more improvement. While praising the Government’s decision to invite the Special Rapporteur to the country, Brazil was concerned at the conclusions in the report of the Commission of Inquiry and hoped that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would make further progress towards the enjoyment of human rights.
In explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Lao People’s Republic said that his delegation shared the position that country-specific resolutions were not the right method for advancing human rights. The current resolution went against the principles of non-politicization and respect for national sovereignty. The universal periodic review was the best mechanism for reviewing human rights in any country. Therefore, his delegation had voted against the resolution.
Also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Viet Nam said that his delegation had voted against the resolution because constructive dialogue and discussion, through the universal periodic review mechanism, was the only and most appropriate way to examine a country’s human rights situation. Viet Nam would continue to condemn all acts of abduction and send sympathies to victims. His delegation called on the parties concerned to find a satisfactory solution through mutual dialogue.
Also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, Singapore’s representative said that her delegation had maintained a principled position against country-specific resolutions. Singapore’s abstention, however, did not mean her country condoned the mistreatment of citizens.
In explanation of position after the vote, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s representative said there was no further need for human rights dialogue with the European Union, as its only political objective was to eliminate the ideal social system of his country. Despite hostile forces, he added, the country would continue to safeguard its social system by all means.
Making a general statement, Norway’s representative said her delegation had supported the resolution due to deep concerns of human rights violations. Welcoming the cooperation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with the Special Rapporteur, she called on the country to follow through on it.
(...)
Voting Results on Display
화면상의 표결 결과
Amendment to A/C.3/69/L.28 (proposed by Cuba)
A/C.3/69/L.28에 대한 수정안 (쿠바의 제안)
Recorded Vote: Recorded vote on A/C.3/69/L.63 as orally revised
A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1
Recorded Vote: Recorded vote on A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1*
[Adopted Resolution/채택된 결의안]
Situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
조선민주주의인민공화국에서의 인권상황
|
|
United Nations |
|
A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1* | |||
|
|
General Assembly |
|
Distr.: Limited 14 November 2014
Original: English |
| ||
Sixty-ninth session
Third Committee
Agenda item 68 (c)
Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives
Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Palau, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Uruguay and Vanuatu: revised draft resolution
Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
The General Assembly,
Reaffirming that all States have an obligation to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to fulfil the obligations that they have undertaken under the various international instruments,
Recalling all previous resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including Assembly resolution 68/183 of 18 December 2013 and Council resolution 25/25 of 28 March 2014,[1] and mindful of the need for the international community to strengthen its coordinated efforts aimed at achieving the implementation of those resolutions,
Deeply concerned at the grave human rights situation, the pervasive culture of impunity and the lack of accountability for human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
Welcoming the report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,[2] and expressing grave concern at the detailed findings contained therein,
Noting the transmission of the report of the commission of inquiry to the Security Council on 14 April 2014,
Recalling the responsibility of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to protect its population from crimes against humanity,
Taking note of the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, regretting that he still has not been allowed to visit the country and that he has received no cooperation from the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and taking note also of the comprehensive report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea submitted in accordance with resolution 68/183,
Mindful that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,[3] the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,3 the Convention on the Rights of the Child[4] and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,[5] and recalling the concluding observations of the treaty bodies under the four treaties,
Noting with appreciation the signature of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities[6] and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography[7] by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, encouraging the Government to take speedy steps to ratify the Convention and the Optional Protocol, and urging the Government to fully respect the rights of persons with disabilities and children,
Acknowledging the participation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the second universal periodic review process, noting the Government’s acceptance of 113 out of the 268 recommendations contained in the outcome of the review[8] and its stated commitment to implement them and look into the possibility of implementing a further 58 recommendations, and emphasizing the importance of the implementation of the recommendations in order to address the grave human rights violations in the country,
Noting with appreciation the collaboration established between the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United Nations Children’s Fund and the World Health Organization in order to improve the health situation in the country, and the collaboration established with the United Nations Children’s Fund in order to improve the quality of education for children,
Noting the decision on the resumption, on a modest scale, of the activities of the United Nations Development Programme in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and encouraging the engagement of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with the international community to ensure that the programmes benefit the persons in need of assistance,
Noting also the cooperation between the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the World Food Programme, the United Nations Children’s Fund and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on food security assessments, underscoring the importance of those assessments in analysing changes in the national, household and individual food security and nutritional situation and thereby in supporting donor confidence in the targeting of aid programmes, noting further the letter of understanding signed by the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the World Food Programme and the importance of further improvements in operating conditions, bringing access and monitoring arrangements closer to international standards for all United Nations entities, and noting with appreciation the work of international aid operators,
Noting further the importance of the issue of international abductions and of the immediate return of all abductees, taking note of the outcome of the government-level consultation between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Japan in May 2014, and expecting concrete and positive results from the investigations being conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on all the Japanese nationals, in particular victims of abduction,
Noting the importance of the inter-Korean dialogue, which could contribute to the improvement of the human rights and humanitarian situation in the country,
Welcoming the resumption of the reunions of separated families across the border in February 2014, and, given that this is an urgent humanitarian concern of the entire Korean people, hoping that necessary arrangements for further reunions on a larger scale and a regular basis will be made by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and members of the Korean diaspora,
1. Condemns the long-standing and ongoing systematic, widespread and gross violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including those which the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, established by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 22/13 of 21 March 2013,[9] has said may amount to crimes against humanity, and the continuing impunity for such violations;
2. Expresses its very serious concern at:
(a) The persistence of continuing reports of violations of human rights, including the detailed findings made by the commission of inquiry in its report, such as:
(i) Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including inhuman conditions of detention; rape; public executions; extrajudicial and arbitrary detention; the absence of due process and the rule of law, including fair trial guarantees and an independent judiciary; extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions; the imposition of the death penalty for political and religious reasons; collective punishments extending up to three generations; and the extensive use of forced labour;
(ii) The existence of an extensive system of political prison camps, where a vast number of persons are deprived of their liberty and subjected to deplorable conditions and where alarming violations of human rights are perpetrated, and in this regard strongly urges the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to immediately end this practice and to release all political prisoners unconditionally and without any delay;
(iii) The forcible transfer of populations and the limitations imposed on every person who wishes to move freely within the country and travel abroad, including the punishment of those who leave or try to leave the country without permission, or their families, as well as punishment of persons who are returned;
(iv) The situation of refugees and asylum seekers expelled or returned to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and sanctions imposed on citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who have been repatriated from abroad, leading to punishments of internment, torture, other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, sexual violence or the death penalty, and in this regard strongly urges all States to respect the fundamental principle of
non-refoulement, to treat those who seek refuge humanely and to ensure unhindered access to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and his Office, with a view to protecting the human rights of those who seek refuge, and once again urges States parties to comply with their obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees[10] and the 1967 Protocol thereto[11] in relation to refugees from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who are covered by those instruments;
(v) All-pervasive and severe restrictions on the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion or belief, opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association, the right to privacy and equal access to information, by such means as the persecution, torture and imprisonment of individuals exercising their freedom of opinion and expression, religion or belief, and their families, and the right of everyone to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, of his or her country;
(vi) Violations of economic, social and cultural rights, which have led to severe hunger, malnutrition, widespread health problems and other hardship for the population in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in particular for women, children, persons with disabilities and the elderly;
(vii) Violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women, in particular the creation of internal conditions that force women to leave the country and make them extremely vulnerable to trafficking in persons for the purpose of prostitution, domestic servitude or forced marriage and the subjection of women to forced abortions, gender-based discrimination, including in the political and social spheres, and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence;
(viii) Violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of children, in particular the continued lack of access to basic economic, social and cultural rights for many children, and in this regard notes the particularly vulnerable situation faced by, inter alia, returned or repatriated children, street children, children with disabilities, children whose parents are detained, children living in detention or in institutions and children in conflict with the law;
(ix) Violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons with disabilities, especially in the use of collective camps and of coercive measures that target the rights of persons with disabilities to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children;
(x) Violations of workers’ rights, including the right to freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, the right to strike as defined by the obligations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,3 and the prohibition of the economic exploitation of children and of any harmful or hazardous work of children as defined by the obligations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under the Convention on the Rights of the Child;4
(xi) Discrimination based on the songbun system, which classifies people on the basis of State-assigned social class and birth, and also includes consideration of political opinions and religion;
(b) The continued refusal of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to recognize the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or to extend cooperation to the Special Rapporteur;
(c) The continued lack of acknowledgement by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of the grave human rights situation in the country and its consequential lack of action to implement the recommendations contained in the outcome of its first universal periodic review;[12]
(d) The failure of the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to prosecute those responsible for human rights violations, including violations which the commission of inquiry has said may amount to crimes against humanity;
3. Underscores its very serious concern at the systematic abduction, denial of repatriation and subsequent enforced disappearance of persons, including those from other countries, on a large scale and as a matter of State policy, and in this regard strongly calls upon the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea urgently to resolve these issues of international concern, in a transparent manner, including by ensuring the immediate return of abductees;
4. Expresses its very deep concern at the precarious humanitarian situation in the country, which could rapidly deteriorate owing to limited resilience to natural disasters and to government policies causing limitations in the availability of and access to food, compounded by structural weaknesses in agricultural production resulting in significant shortages of diversified food and the State restrictions on the cultivation and trade in foodstuffs, as well as the prevalence of chronic malnutrition, particularly among the most vulnerable groups, pregnant women, children, persons with disabilities and the elderly, and urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in this regard, to take preventive and remedial action, cooperating where necessary with international donor agencies and in accordance with international standards for monitoring humanitarian assistance;
5. Commends the Special Rapporteur for the activities undertaken so far and for his continued efforts in the conduct of his mandate despite the denial of access;
6. Also commends the work of the commission of inquiry and recognizes the importance of its report, and regrets that the commission received no cooperation from the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including with regard to access to the country;
7. Acknowledges the commission’s finding that the body of testimony gathered and the information received provide reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, pursuant to policies established at the highest level of the State for decades;
8. Decides to submit the report of the commission of inquiry to the Security Council, and encourages the Council to consider the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the commission and take appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through consideration of referral of the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible for acts that the commission has said may constitute crimes against humanity;
9. Welcomes the steps taken by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights towards establishing a field-based structure in the Republic of Korea to strengthen the monitoring and documentation of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to ensure accountability, to provide the Special Rapporteur with increased support, to enhance the engagement and capacity-building of the Governments of all States concerned, civil society and other stakeholders and to maintain the visibility of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including through sustained communications, advocacy and outreach initiatives;
10. Calls upon Member States to undertake to ensure that the field-based structure of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights can function with independence, that it has sufficient resources and that it is not subjected to any reprisals or threats;
11. Strongly urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to respect fully all human rights and fundamental freedoms and, in this regard:
(a) To immediately put an end to the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights emphasized above, inter alia, by implementing fully the measures set out in the above-mentioned resolutions of the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council, and the recommendations addressed to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by the Council in the context of the universal periodic review and by the commission of inquiry, the United Nations special procedures and treaty bodies;
(b) To protect its inhabitants, address the issue of impunity and ensure that those responsible for violations of human rights are brought to justice before an independent judiciary;
(c) To tackle the root causes leading to refugee outflows and prosecute those who exploit refugees by human smuggling, trafficking and extortion, while not criminalizing the victims;
(d) To ensure that citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who are expelled or returned to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are able to return in safety and dignity, are treated humanely and are not subjected to any kind of punishment, and to provide information on their status and treatment;
(e) To extend its full cooperation to the Special Rapporteur, including by granting him full, free and unimpeded access to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and to other United Nations human rights mechanisms so that a full needs assessment of the human rights situation may be made;
(f) To engage in technical cooperation activities in the field of human rights with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and his Office, as pursued by the High Commissioner in recent years, with a view to improving the situation of human rights in the country, and to strive to implement the accepted recommendations stemming from the universal periodic review;
(g) To engage in cooperation with the International Labour Organization;
(h) To continue and reinforce its cooperation with United Nations humanitarian agencies;
(i) To ensure full, safe and unhindered access to humanitarian aid and take measures to allow humanitarian agencies to secure its impartial delivery to all parts of the country on the basis of need in accordance with humanitarian principles, as it pledged to do, and to ensure access to adequate food and implement more effective food security policies, including through sustainable agriculture, sound food production distribution measures and the allocation of more funds to the food sector, and to ensure adequate monitoring of humanitarian assistance;
(j) To further improve cooperation with the United Nations country team and development agencies so that they can directly contribute to improving the living conditions of the civilian population, including accelerating progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, in accordance with international monitoring and evaluation procedures;
(k) To consider ratifying and acceding to remaining international human rights treaties, which would enable a dialogue with the human rights treaty bodies;
12. Urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to implement the recommendations of the commission of inquiry without delay;
13. Encourages all Member States, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Secretariat, civil society organizations, foundations and engaged business enterprises and other stakeholders towards which the commission of inquiry has directed recommendations to implement or take forward those recommendations;
14. Welcomes the recent willingness expressed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to consider human rights dialogues with States and groups of States, technical cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and a country visit of the Special Rapporteur;
15. Calls upon the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to continue engaging constructively with international interlocutors with a view to promoting concrete improvements in the human rights situation on the ground, including through dialogues, official visits to the country and more people-to-people contact;
16. Decides to continue its examination of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at its seventieth session, and to this end requests the Secretary-General to submit a comprehensive report on the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and requests the Special Rapporteur to continue to report his findings and recommendations, as well as to report on the follow-up to the implementation of the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, in line with Human Rights Council resolution 25/25.1
* Reissued for technical reasons on 18 November 2014.
[1] See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 53 (A/69/53), chap. II, sect. A.
[2] A/HRC/25/63.
[8] A/HRC/27/10.
[9] See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 53 (A/68/53), chap. IV, sect. A.
[12] A/HRC/13/13.
Cuba's Amendment to A/C.3/69/L.28
A/C.3/69/L.28에 대한 쿠바의 개정안
|
United Nations |
|
A/C.3/69/L.63 | |||
|
General Assembly |
|
Distr.: Limited 13 November 2014
Original: English
|
| ||
Sixty-ninth session
Third Committee
Agenda item 68 (c)
Promotion and protection of human rights:
human rights situations and reports of special
rapporteurs and representatives
Cuba: amendment to draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28
Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Delete operative paragraphs 7 and 8 and insert a new operative paragraph 7 reading as follows:
Decides to adopt a new cooperative approach to the consideration of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that will enable: (a) the establishment of dialogues by representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with States and groups of States interested in the issue; (b) the development of technical cooperation between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; and (c) the visit of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the country;
[Third Committee's Report to the Plenary/본회의에 제출하는 제3위원회 보고서]
| Item 68 (c): Human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives |
|
United Nations |
|
A/69/488/Add.3 | |||
|
General Assembly |
|
Distr.: General 3 December 2014
Original: English
|
| ||
Sixty-ninth session
Agenda item 68 (c)
|
|
Promotion and protection of human rights: human
rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs
and representatives
Report of the Third Committee*
Rapporteur: Mr. Ervin Nina (Albania)
II. Consideration of proposals
A. Draft resolutions A/C.3/69/L.28 and Rev.1 and amendment thereto contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63
8. At the 42nd meeting, on 6 November, the representative of Italy, on behalf of Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, introduced a draft resolution entitled “Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” (A/C.3/69/L.28). Subsequently, Bosnia and Herzegovina joined in sponsoring the draft resolution.
9. At its 46th meeting, on 18 November, the Committee had before it a revised draft resolution (A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1), submitted by the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28, as well as Botswana, Kiribati, Monaco, Palau, Seychelles, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uruguay and Vanuatu.
10. At the same meeting, the representative of Italy made a statement and announced that Maldives, the Marshall Islands, New Zealand and Serbia had joined in sponsoring the draft resolution.
Action on the amendment contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63
11. At the 46th meeting, on 18 November, the Chair drew the attention of the Committee to the amendment submitted to draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1, as contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63.
12. At the same meeting, the representative of Cuba made a statement and orally revised the amendment (see A/C.3/69/SR.46).
13. The representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, China, Japan, Belarus, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Russian Federation and South Africa made statements in connection with the amendment, as orally revised.
14. The representative of Italy also made a statement, in which he requested a recorded vote on the amendment, as orally revised.
15. At the same meeting, the Committee rejected the amendment contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63, as orally revised, by a recorded vote of 77 to 40, with
50 abstentions. The voting was as follows:
In favour:
Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Burundi, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.
Against:
Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.
Abstaining:
Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Nauru, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Rwanda, Seychelles, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia.
16. Before the vote, statements were made by the representatives of Italy, Japan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States of America, Albania, Switzerland (on behalf also of Australia, Austria, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) and Ecuador; after the vote, a statement was made by the representative of Uruguay (see A/C.3/69/SR.46).
Action on draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1
17. At the 47th meeting, on 18 November, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea made a statement and requested a recorded vote on the draft resolution.
18. At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1 by a recorded vote of 111 to 19, with 55 abstentions (see para. 36, draft resolution I). The voting was as follows:[1]
In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu.
Against:
Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Oman, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of),
Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.
Abstaining:
Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Sudan, Suriname, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia.
19. Before the vote, statements were made by the representatives of Japan, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Cuba, Belarus, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Ecuador; after the vote, statements were made by the representatives of India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, Zimbabwe, Malaysia, Brazil, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Viet Nam, Singapore, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Norway (see A/C.3/69/SR.47).
(...)
III. Recommendations of the Third Committee
36. The Third Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of the following draft resolutions:
Draft resolution I
Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic
of Korea
(...)
Source:
http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/gashc4122.doc.htm