ISHR -International Service for Human Rights

The 56^th session of the General Assembly (GA) met September through December 2001. The Assembly, the main deliberative organ of the United Nations (UN), is composed of Representatives of all member States, who retain one vote in the GA. Issues related to human rights generally are included on the Programme of work of the Third Committee (the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee), which met this year from 8 October until 30 November. After the six main Committees complete consideration of various questions related to the wide range of UN activities, the draft resolutions are submitted to the Plenary, where Representatives from all member States make decisions on the resolutions. This report focuses on debates on human rights issues in the Third Committee, and the resolutions that were adopted in the Plenary, upon the suggestion of the Third Committee.

The question of an appropriate response by the international community to the September 11^th attacks on the United States provided the backdrop to the debates in the GA this year. Delegations in the Third Committee added their voices to those condemning the attacks and many of their discussions echoed tensions and concerns in meetings throughout UN headquarters. Indeed, the emphasis on security issues at times threatened to overwhelm pressing concerns on the human rights agenda.

One particularly unfortunate casualty was the postponement of the UNGA Special Session on Children, which was initially scheduled for September 19-21, was moved to May 8-10 of 2002. As a result, the Third Committee delayed work on the traditional omnibus resolution on the rights of the child, and adopted a procedural text in its place, the details of which are provided below.

The September 11^th attacks led to a security crackdown at the UN, and many representatives of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were denied access to headquarters for the first few weeks of the Third Committee’s work as well as during the week of the Assembly's high-level general debate. While representatives of NGOs navigated bureaucratic labyrinths to ensure at least limited participation in meetings, delegates and the UN Secretariat continued to gain unfettered access, without metal detector checks of their persons and belongings. Although all concerned welcomed the increased emphasis on legitimate security measures, the double standard highlighted the Assembly's long-standing attitude of expendability towards the contributions made by NGOs and civil society at Assembly meetings.

A particularly unfortunate fallout of these circumstances was the weak attendance by NGOs during the presentations and interactive dialogues of several special representatives and rapporteurs, which took place during the week of the Assembly’s high-level general debate. Only a handful of attendees dotted the balcony where NGOs sit, in contrast to the dozens that turned out for most items on the Committee’s human rights agenda when monitoring was permitted.

Increasing tensions across the globe due to the US-led military intervention in Afghanistan and escalating violence in the Middle East added to the urgency of negotiations in the Third Committee this year. Many Arabic States took the floor during debates on various agenda items to roundly condemn the violence of Israel in the occupied territories. However, the calculus of votes on the resolution on the "Right of the Palestinian people to self-determination" (A/56/142) did not change from previous years, with the US united with Israel in voting against the resolution, despite what the Palestine observer noted as "positive comments" made by President Bush to the Assembly in November 2001. A more productive development was an intensified focus on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, resulting in a unanimously approved resolution on that country. The text includes, among other items, a robust call to end impunity, language on the inclusion of women in all decision–making processes, as well as an invitation to the Special Representative to provide updates "as appropriate" of his reports to the GA and Commission on Human Rights.

Another concern that predictably elicited spirited debate in open and closed sessions in the Third Committee and ignited a flurry of ninth-hour negotiations was the resolution on human rights and terrorism. Though the foremost contentious issue in the text concerned the interlinking of non-State actors with human rights violations, new language addressing refugees and asylum-seekers also drew scrutiny. Since international refugee law already prevents individuals who have committed terrorist acts from benefiting from refugee protection, the actions and precautions outlined in the text could keep innocent refugees and asylum-seekers from gaining protection. Indeed, Mr Ruud Lubbers, the High Commissioner for Refugees, during his dialogue with delegates in the Third Committee, urged States to ensure that the global fight against terrorism does not weaken the international protection regime for these already vulnerable groups.

Worth noting in this context were the negotiations carried out by the General Assembly's Sixth Committee (Legal) on the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. Although negotiations on this treaty had been underway for several years, pressure to complete the text intensified in the wake of the September 11^th attacks. However, the treaty, as currently drafted, undermines refugee protection, freedom of expression, and humanitarian law.

The battle against impunity continued in 2001. Most notably, the Assembly received the interim report of Ms Hina Jilani, the Special Representative for human rights defenders. In her presentation to the Third Committee, Jilani expressed deep concern that the culture of impunity had become the most serious human rights problem in many countries. Since she initiated her work in September 2000, the Special Representative has received numerous complaints relating to human rights defenders in all parts of the world. She also criticised the “disturbing tendency” of Governments "to view human rights activity as being against national interest and a threat to national security". Given the strengthening of anti-terrorism strategies and laws by many States in the wake of the September 11^th attacks, these comments were particularly timely.

While not the subject of debate in the Third Committee, a development in the Assembly's administrative and budgetary body (Fifth Committee) is worth noting. That Committee approved a budget of $1.58 million to implement the recommendations of a 2000 report by a UN panel on peacekeeping reforms, the so-called Brahimi plan -- named for panel chairman Lakhdar Brahimi. The report proposes a set of recommendations that includes, among other items, a call for the effective mainstreaming of human rights into peacekeeping missions. The increasing number of peacekeeping operations with human rights components has led to a need to strengthen the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights office’s capacity for daily advice and substantive backstopping. Part of the approved budget will go to strengthening the office, and helping it to provide adequate, systematic and prompt substantive support and to facilitate links with the broader United Nations human rights programme.

In another unprecedented move this year, the Third Committee delayed discussions and work on resolutions on the agenda item of elimination of racism and racial discrimination until Spring 2002 because of the late distribution of the Report on the World Conference against Racism (WCAR). As described below, States disagreed on the placement of three paragraphs, relating to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, apartheid, colonialism and genocide, in the final text. The report was finalised in January 2002, only after the Third Committee had completed its work. This regrettable development is a reflection of the general acrimony surrounding the conference itself. That said, the High Commissioner for Human Rights (Mary Robinson), in her presentation to the Third Committee, underscored the accomplishments of the conference and reiterated the importance of the global anti-discrimination agenda that resulted from the negotiations. In an impassioned plea that augured major challenges for human rights advocates and defenders, the High Commissioner also urged States to ensure that any new security measures would not erode core human rights safeguards, particularly the principle of non-discrimination. She also requested that special efforts be made to protect the rights of vulnerable groups.

Sixteen resolutions, out of a total of 72, were adopted by vote at the 2001 GA session. In a number of cases, votes were called on country resolutions, including Iran, Iraq, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, others were requested because some States believed that the subject could more properly addressed in other forums, for example, in the Fifth or Sixth Committee of the General Assembly.

In this context, a number of delegations introduced resolutions that placed increasing emphasis on promoting States "rights" while blindsiding internationally agreed-upon principles of individual human rights. One such resolution, introduced by Cuba under the unwieldy euphemism of Respect for the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms and in solving international problems of a humanitarian character (A/RES/56/152) stood out as one of the more insidious examples of this unfortunate trend, which began several years ago. Other resolutions that addressed state relations and upheld principles of national sovereignty and non-interference while downplaying individual human rights included "human rights and unilateral coercive measures" (A/RES/56/148), "human rights and cultural diversity" (A/RES/56/156) and another Cuban offering entitled "Respect for principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in electoral process as an essential element in the promotion and protection human rights" (A/RES/56/154).

A similar breakdown of consensus occurred under resolutions concerned with economic, social and cultural rights, including "the right to development" (A/RES/56/150) and "globalisation and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights" (A/RES/56/165). These resolutions often act as vehicles for States to assert positions on macroeconomic issues, a strategy which can minimise the focus on concrete measures to ensure the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights. One of the fiercest exchanges of the Third Committee occurred when Egypt, Libya and Sudan took umbrage at several northern States’ assertions that the resolution’s sponsors did not understand the complexities of the new international order and globalisation. The angry accusations of both sides highlighted the different premises underlying the developed and the developing world’s approaches to the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights.

In one sense, the changed climate after September 11^th did not shift entrenched positions by States on the substance of resolutions adopted during the Third Committee this year. However, many Special Representatives, in their presentations, recognised that redefined international priorities in the wake of the September 11^th events created serious human rights problems for those already at risk, including human rights defenders, migrants, refugees and internally displaced persons, and they called on States to ensure that these already vulnerable populations would not suffer more as a result.

Tough challenges face the international community in the years ahead, but the eradication of terrorism and the maintenance of human security must continue to be guided by fundamental principles of human rights. As Mary Robinson pointed out in her address to the Third Committee, "All nations contributed to our common international human rights standards. We must all defend this common heritage". To heed this call, real leadership is required by Governments and civil society alike.

On 6 June 2001, the Secretary-General addressed a note verbale to all Governments requesting them to submit any pertinent information relating to the Assembly resolution on the Universal realisation of the right of peoples to self-determination (A/55/85). The Report of the Secretary-General on the right of peoples to self-determination (A/56/295) outlines the three replies received as of 15 August 2001, from Cuba, Qatar and Azerbaijan. In its reply, Azerbaijan stated that the rights of persons belonging to minorities and the right of self-determination should not be confused and minority rights should not be used as the basis for claims of secession or for the dismemberment of States.

In introducing the draft resolution, the delegate for Pakistan stated that the two most glaring contraventions of the right of self-determination are "Kashmir and Palestine". The same examples were referred to by the delegate for Pakistan in the 55^th session. During debates, the delegate for Liechtenstein took a conceptual approach, arguing that the right to self-determination can take different forms and be expressed in different ways. More importantly, stated the delegate, it must be understood that the equation of self-determination with independent statehood is erroneous. Reflecting these views, but taking them further, the delegate for the Russian Federation stated that the right of self-determination is an important right to respect but should not be seen as a blessing for any type of offensive in order to declare independence. That could lead to terrorist acts, which could not be accepted as legitimate.

Like last year, the resolution called Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (A/RES/56/141), introduced by Pakistan, was adopted without a vote by the Assembly. The resolution is virtually identical to last year's. The Assembly reaffirms that the universal realisation of the right of all peoples to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for their preservation and promotion, and calls upon States responsible for acts that have resulted in the suppression of the right to self-determination to immediately cease those acts. The Commission on Human Rights is requested to continue to give special attention to violations of human rights, including the right to self-determination, resulting from foreign military intervention, aggression or occupation.

As expected, the debate on this issue was heated. The delegate for Israel stated that Israel recognises the importance of the right to self-determination, as shown by Israel’s recognition of the right of Palestinians to determine their own future, the basis of the 1993 Oslo Accords. However, the right to self-determination does not provide a mandate for any people to unilaterally exercise that right in any manner they see fit. Palestinian terrorism denies others the rights they seek, and undermines their own society. Continuing, the delegate stated that the realisation of the Palestinian desire for self-determination must be achieved through negotiations conducted in an atmosphere free from the use of violence.

The observer for Palestine called the "Israeli occupation" regrettable and shameful. The observer called on the United Nations to take concrete measures to ensure that Palestinians could realise their right to self-determination, and condemned the excessive and indiscriminate use of force by the Israeli military. In reply to the delegate of Israel, the observer stated that the right of Palestinians to self-determination does not emanate from any international agreement, it is inherent and inalienable, and asserted that no people under occupation turn to violence unless they are continually terrorised or oppressed.

The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (A/56/142), introduced by Egypt, was adopted by the Assembly by a vote of 161 in favour, three against (United States, Israel, and Marshall Islands) and one abstention (Federated States of Micronesia). This was a slight change from the Third Committee vote, in which 152 voted for the resolution and 2 voted against (United States and Israel), with no abstentions. Between the time of the Third Committee and Assembly votes hostilities between the Israeli and Palestinian sides in the Middle East had escalated.

The resolution is virtually identical to last year's. The Assembly reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State, and urges all States and agencies and organisations to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in their quest for self-determination. The Assembly also expresses its hope for an immediate resumption of negotiations within the peace process and for the speedy achievement of a final settlement between the Palestinian and Israeli sides.

Following the vote in the Third Committee, the representatives of a number of States offered explanations for their delegation's vote. The representative of Israel stated that the desire of Palestinians to self-determination could be achieved through negotiations, not terrorism. Canada also affirmed the negotiation process. The observer for Palestine said the adoption of the resolution was an important development because for the first time the number of co-sponsors surpassed 102. The observer noted that the United States voted against the resolution again, but hoped that U.S. policy would soon reflect the positive comments made by President Bush to the Assembly in November 2001 and by the Secretary of State Colin Powell. Egypt expressed hope that this would be the last time the Committee would take up such a resolution and that next year the Palestinian people would be able to exercise the right to self-determination.

On the right of peoples to self-determination, the Committee had before it a note by the Secretary-General on the Use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights and Impeding the Exercise of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination (A/56/224), which was submitted by the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Enrique Bernales Ballesteros.

The report identifies the need for States to take action against mercenaries that are involved in the financing and implementation of terrorist activity. The report highlights the challenges facing many African States, and recommends that the Assembly condemn mercenary activities frequently organised to undermine the rights of Africans.

Since the drafting of the report, on 20 September 2001, Costa Rica became the twenty-second State to ratify the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. As a result, the Convention entered into force on 20 October 2001, providing States with a variety of options to better facilitate preventive cooperation, better identify situations involving mercenaries and better facilitate extradition procedures and the effective prosecution and punishment of offenders.

Cuba, Sudan and the delegate from the Russian Federation requested a definitive definition of the term "mercenary" in order to guarantee proper implementation of the Convention. The Special Rapporteur, in a dialogue with the Committee, emphasised that State action is particularly necessary and relevant today in light of the September 11^th attacks.

The resolution on the Use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (A/RES/56/232) was introduced by Cuba and adopted with a vote of 77 in favour, 20 against, with 20 abstaining. This resolution contrasts to the same resolution adopted in 2000. Although both resolutions call for publication of mercenary activities by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and for clearer definitions of mercenary, this year the Assembly requests that the Special Rapporteur consult States intergovernmental, and non-governmental organisations to provide necessary assistance and implementation of the present resolution. The Assembly also requests that the Rapporteur take into account that mercenary activities "are taking on new forms, manifestations and modalities".

The Committee considered the Secretary-General's related report (A/56/206), which summarises the relevant activities undertaken by the High Commissioner for Human Rights since the autumn of 2000 until the end of June 2001.

The report highlights the appointment by the Commission on Human Rights of a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people (Commission resolution 2001/57 of 12 April 2001).

The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, established by ECOSOC resolution 2000/22 as an advisory body with a mandate to discuss indigenous issues relating to economic and social development, culture, the environment, education, health and human rights, will hold its first annual session in New York on 6 to 17 May, 2002.

Some delegates urged that financing for the Permanent Forum come from a stable revenue stream, like the United Nation’s regular budget, to ensure the smooth operation of the Forum. Others emphasised that the establishment of the Permanent Forum does not mean that the Working Group should be disbanded. The Working Group should continue their work at least until the Permanent Forum is fully operational, at which point it might be appropriate to review the relationship between the two. The delegate from Switzerland asked that Geneva be considered as a possible location for the Forum.

Some delegates stated that it is important to ensure that a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples be adopted before the end of the Decade in 2004. One delegate noted that although much progress had been made in this regard, the expectations had been greater than the achievements.

As was the case last year, the resolution on the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People (A/RES/56/140), introduced by Denmark, was adopted without a vote. The Assembly welcomes the establishment of the Permanent Forum, the contribution made by the World Conference against Racism to the realisation of the goals of the Decade, and the appointment of the Special Rapporteur. Most notably, the Assembly decides that the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations should also be used to assist representatives of indigenous communities and organisations in attending, as observers, the sessions of the Permanent Forum, and appealed to all Governments and organisations to consider contributing to the Fund, if possible with a substantial increase in the level of contributions.

A document was circulated amongst the Committee by a group of indigenous peoples and organisations urging the Assembly to provide the necessary financial resources for the functioning of the Permanent Forum, and calling for the establishment of a separate secretariat for the Forum. Partly because the Forum will not only address human rights issues, the group proposed that Secretariat not be attached to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights or any secretariat of the subsidiary bodies of ECOSOC. Noting the example of the United Nations' efforts to integrate gender into its programmes and practices, including giving "preference to equally qualified women candidates", the document states that the principle of giving "preference to equally qualified Indigenous candidates" for staffing of the secretariat of the Permanent Forum would promote the objectives of the Decade.

The Committee considered the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (A/56/253). Since 2001 marks the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, the Special Rapporteur reported on the mandate since its creation regarding both management and prevention in the area of freedom of religion and belief and co-operation among international and non-governmental organisations.

The interim report contains information about communications sent by the Special Rapporteur to States and replies received since the establishment of the mandate (1988-2001). Since 1994, the Special Rapporteur has had the mandate to issue urgent appeals to respond more efficiently and more promptly to very grave situations or cases. In 2001, two urgent appeals were issued, one in respect of the destruction of non-Islamic statues and monuments in Afghanistan, and the other concerning a proposal by the Taliban government in Afghanistan to require non-Muslims to wear a distinctive emblem.

During a dialogue with the Committee, the Special Rapporteur noted the growth in extremism, and in discrimination and intolerance, including against women, upheld by State or non-State actors as well as traditional practices. He also stated that the international community must emphasise the education of younger generations in order to make progress on the prevention of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief. The Special Rapporteur also raised concerns related to the events of September 11^th 2001, which he referred to as a hideous crime. He feared that a confrontation of cultures and civilisations was taking place and was concerned about many recent incidents with Arab and Islamic victims. Within one week of September 11^th, there had been more incidences of intolerance than during the entire year.

As was the case last year, Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance (A/RES/56/157), introduced by Ireland, was adopted without a vote. In a resolution that is generally the same as last year’s, the Assembly continues to urge States to ensure that their constitutional and legal systems provide effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including the provision of effective remedies. States are also urged to ensure that in the course of their official duties, public officials, including those in the military and law enforcement, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the basis of religious belief. In addition to last year’s resolution, the Assembly underlines the important role of education in the promotion of tolerance and elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief, and invites States, religious bodies and civil society to undertake dialogue at all levels to promote greater tolerance, respect and understanding of freedom of religion or belief.

Three months after the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR) ended on 8 September 2001, the United Nations' Secretariat had not released the final Declaration and Program of Action. Following this unprecedented development, the Third Committee was unable to present the GA with a final document during the 2001 sessions that the world body could use to deal with the issues agreed upon at Durban. Substantial discussions and resolutions on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination were delayed until spring of 2002, as outlined in the procedural resolution on a Resumed session of the Third Committee (A/C.3/56/L.79), which was adopted without a vote.

On 6 November, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson explained to the Third Committee, in a printed statement, that the discrepancy between member States was over the placement of three paragraphs -- numbers 97, 99 and 100. "The disagreement does not relate to the substance of the paragraphs", said the High Commissioner, "Only where they should be placed". The paragraphs concern condemnation of and apologies for slavery and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, apartheid, colonialism and genocide, and call for "concerned States ... to take appropriate remedial and other measures to halt and reverse the lasting consequences of those practices". The High Commissioner also expressed her concern that resolving the disagreement by vote on what was a consensus document "would deal it a serious blow".

The developments in the Third Committee were not altogether surprising, given the tumultuous negotiations during the WCAR conference this year. Some States (in particular the WEO (Western European and Others [US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand] Group) still have an agenda to dilute their culpability, and to place paragraphs that are action oriented in the Declaration where they would have no practical follow-up. However, according to a number of representatives in the Third Committee, it was the African group that requested that the UN Secretariat postpone consideration of the agenda item on Racism and Racial Discrimination until the release of the final Durban document. The African group insisted that the disputed paragraphs be included in the Program of Action, as in the document that was finalised by the president of the WCAR.

Behind the scenes, the tensions around the issue were also reflected in NGO statements and discussions. One international NGO questioned whether the Secretarial body would "follow the mandate of the entire Conference" or "function as the private secretary of the Western group".

Amidst the tense circumstances, the Group of 77 (G-77) continued, in closed sessions, to consider a resolution, which would provide for a five-year follow up to Durban. During the discussions, four South American countries fervently pushed to suspend more work on the resolution until the report was released. The majority of other G-77 countries pushed to complete discussion of the resolution, pointing out that the text would then be prepared when the Third Committee returned to consider it. However, the States objecting refused to change their position. By postponing discussion on the resolution, States may now be able to blame tight time constraints as an excuse to adopt a weaker resolution when the item arrives on the Third Committee agenda again. On 2 January 2002, after the 2001 session of the General Assembly had adjourned, the report on the WCAR was finally released.

Although The Third Committee did not consider the full report on the outcome of the World Conference against Racism, it did have before it the report of the Secretary-General on Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Third Decade to Combat Racism and World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (A/56/481). According to the High Commissioner on Human Rights (Mary Robinson), who also served as the Secretary-General for the WCAR, the conclusions of the conference can be used as a framework by individual countries, governments and their civil society partners to promote policies of tolerance and protect citizens from all forms of discrimination. The report concludes that the most important event during the past eight years of the Third Decade was the Durban Conference.

During an interactive dialogue with the Third Committee, Robinson stated that the Programme of Action provides a series of recommendations for programs and plans to combat racism, including an anti-discrimination unit. Implementation of the unit, she added, would coincide with the implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and other relevant treaties. Although the World Conference led to concrete recommendations for improvements, discussions during the Durban Conference between the Israeli and Palestinian delegations illuminated the difficulty in overcoming deeply rooted ethnic differences. Robinson also said that a primary feature of the Conference was the protection of migrants. In response to Robinson’s discussion of the issue, various States expressed concern about the fall out from the Conference and regretted that the final document had not yet been released.

Another document before the Third Committee was a note by the Secretariat on the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (A/56/228). The report recommends that a comprehensive report be submitted by the Special Rapporteur to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-eighth session, in March 2002.

The report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (A/56/18), which was drafted before the convening of the WCAR, highlights the work of that Committee during the past year. The Committee continued its significant workload during 2001, examining over 20 reports of States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which has now been ratified by 158 States. The report also notes that only 34 parties have agreed to the optional declaration that recognises the Committee’s competence to receive communications under Article 14 of the Convention. As a result, the report concludes, the individual communications procedure is under-utilised, as is the inter-State complaints procedure.

According to the report of the Secretary-General on the protection of migrants (A/56/310), as of 15 August 2001, 16 countries have now ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and 10 more States have signed the international instrument. Four more ratifications are necessary for the instrument to come into force. This report outlines information received on the issue of the protection of migrants from the following States: Cuba, Thailand, Mauritius, Ecuador, Lebanon, Guatemala, Spain, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, Denmark, Georgia, Columbia, Slovakia, Venezuela, Cyprus, and Madagascar.

The resolution on the Protection of migrants (A/RES/56/170) was introduced by Mexico and adopted without a vote. The resolution condemns all forms of racial discrimination and xenophobia with regard to access to employment, vocational training, housing, schooling, health services and social services. It calls upon States to review and revise immigration policies with a view to eliminating discriminatory practices against migrants, and urges States to adopt effective measures to put an end to the arbitrary arrest and detention of migrants. It also calls upon States to protect the human rights of migrant children, in particular unaccompanied migrant children.

A number of issues that act to strengthen the protection of migrants in various areas were added to this year’s text, compared to previous resolutions on the same topic. The text reaffirms the duty of States to ensure full respect for and observance of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, particularly with regard to the right of foreign nationals, regardless of their immigration status. The resolution also encourages States to participate in regional dialogues on problems of migration, and design and implement regional programmes in order to protect the rights of migrants. The Representative of Singapore, though joining the consensus, stated that her Government believed that immigration policies fell within each State’s sovereign jurisdiction, and reserved the right to reconsider its position in future sessions.

The resolution on the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (A/RES/56/145) was introduced by Mexico and adopted without a vote. Similar in language to last year’s resolution, the text expresses its concern at the growing manifestation of racism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination and inhuman and degrading treatment directed against migrant workers, and calls upon all States to sign or ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Mr Ruud Lubbers, presented a report on the work of the UNHCR for the year 2000 (A/56/12 and Add.1). In the report, the High Commissioner urges governments and politicians to avoid linking terrorism to the plight of refugees. He stresses that refugees have been victims of terrorism, not its perpetrators, and that resettlement programmes should be maintained and not discriminate against particular ethnic and religious groups. The international community should not let those who have been the victims of war, specifically asylum seekers and refugees, become subjects of scrutiny such as racial profiling. The High Commissioner also pledges, through the provision of assistance to host countries and repatriation of refugees, to provide humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The global population of concern to the UNHCR decreased from 22.3 million in 1999 to 21.1 million in 2000. Approximately 800,000 refugees returned home during the year and 400,000 were resettled from countries of first asylum.

In his presentation of the report to the Third Committee, Lubbers highlighted specifically the dire refugee situation in Burundi, and expressed concern about the further risk of displacement in the Balkans, and in Macedonia in particular. Since this year marks the 50th Anniversary of the UN Refugee Convention, the High Commissioner encouraged States to contribute to the program budget for 2002 to further support the work of the UNHCR, especially since effective work of the UNHCR is threatened due to lack of funds.

Under the resolution on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (A/RES/56/137), introduced by Finland, the Assembly urges States and relevant non-governmental organisations in conjunction with the Office of the High Commissioner to mobilise resources with a view to reducing the heavy burden borne by States, in particular by developing countries that have received large numbers of refugees and asylum-seekers. The resolution was adopted without a vote.

The Assembly also adopted a resolution on the Enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the UNHCR (A/RES/56/133) without a vote. After having raised the number of members of the Executive Committee in last year’s resolution from 57 to 58, this year the Assembly increases the number to 61.

The Committee also had before it an audit of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Operations in Albania (A/RES/56/128). According to the report, in March 1999, an estimated 450,000 Kosovars fled to Albania. In June of that year, after the cessation of hostilities, the overwhelming majority of these refugees repatriated spontaneously to Kosovo. During the emergency period and after, the Office of the UNHCR spent approximately $56 million for emergency assistance to Kosovo refugees in Albania.

The report of the Secretary-General on the Assistance to Refugees, Returnees and Displaced Persons in Africa (A/RES/56/335) describes action taken to implement General Assembly resolution 55/77, passed in December 2000, regarding the efforts expended by countries of asylum. The report notes that the main refugee groups continue to originate from Burundi, Sudan, Somalia, Angola, Sierra Leone and Eritrea, the Democratic Republic on the Congo, Liberia and Rwanda. Although there have been some reparation movements, 30% (3.6 million) of the global refugee population remain in Africa. The document also encourages all participants to engage in an open dialogue on the challenges that the UNHCR and refugees face in this area of the world.

In the resolution on Assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa (A/56/135), the Assembly urges, as in years past, the international community to continue funding the refugee programmes of the Office of the High Commissioner. The resolution, which was adopted without a vote, also asks States to ensure that Africa receives a fair and equitable share of the resources designated for refugees.

In his report on the Protection of and assistance to on internally displaced persons (A/56/168), the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, Francis Deng, underscores that the crisis of internal displacement is as acute now as it was eight years ago when the Assembly first considered the problem. Between 20 to 25 million persons in at least 40 countries world-wide are deeply affected and have been uprooted from their homes, depriving them of basic needs. The Representative’s report provides a normative framework on internally displaced persons, information on country missions and new issues for research.

Mr Bacre Ndiaye, of UNHCHR read a statement on behalf of the Special Representative, who was unable to attend the interactive dialogue with the Third Committee. Ndiaye said that Deng had visited about 25 countries around the world where he had met with senior governmental officials, local officials, international and local non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and internally displaced communities. He also highlighted the fact that refugee law is not directly applicable to the situation of internally displaced persons, as international law defines refugees as persons who had fled across international borders.

The Assembly's resolution on the Protection of and assistance to internally displaced persons (A/RES/56/164) was introduced by Norway. In the text, the Assembly notes the urgency of addressing the root causes of internal displacement problem, and notes with appreciation that an increasing number of States, UN agencies, and NGOs are making use of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.

The text elicited criticism from the representatives from Syria and Egypt, who both expressed concern that the Guiding Principles, referenced in operative paragraph 6 and other places, had not been negotiated or agreed upon in any intergovernmental body. However, the Special Representative emphasised, in a written reply on the issue to the representative of Algeria, that the Guiding Principles had been developed as a result of a creative and co-operative process, which began with discussions on the development of a normative framework for internally displaced persons in 1996 with the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. Various resolutions from these bodies resulted in the undertaking of two studies (E/CN.4/1996/52/Add.2) and (E/CN.4/1996/52/Add.1) relating to the issue, which in turn led to the development of the Guiding Principles. Since 1998, when the principles were presented to the Commission, Governments have made statements and resolutions taking note of the principles, and encouraged their further dissemination.

Although consensus was not blocked on the resolution, the delegate from Sudan expressed concern about the reference, in operative paragraph 14, to the establishment of a global internally displaced persons database and the inclusion of a Web site address in the footnote of a resolution. The delegate from Sudan complained that the information provided in the website was from organisations operating illegally in Sudan.

During discussions on the issue, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) took the floor to underscore the organisation's focus on the increasing problem of internally displaced persons in the world, and called for better and closer co-ordination between international organisations on the issue.

In accordance with last year’s resolution (A/RES/54/145), the Secretary-General produced a report on the protection and assistance to unaccompanied and separated refugee Children (A/RES/56/333). The document notes the efforts of the UNHCR and other organisations to protect and assist unaccompanied and separated refugee children, who are at risk and most vulnerable to neglect, violence, forced military recruitment and sexual abuse. A main challenge is the lack of adequate human and financial resources to address their identified needs.

In the resolution on Assistance to unaccompanied refugee minors (A/RES/56/136), which was adopted without a vote, the Assembly urges the Office of the High Commissioner, all United Nations organisations, other international organisations and NGOs concerned to take steps to mobilise resources for the needs and interests of unaccompanied refugee minors and for their reunification with their families. The Assembly also requests that the Secretary-General give special attention to the girl-child refugee in his report to the GA at its 58^th session.

In a resolution on the Follow-up to the regional conference to address the problems of refugees, displaced persons, other forms of involuntary displacement and returnees in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States and relevant neighbouring States (A/RES/56/134), adopted without a vote, the Assembly calls upon the States of the Commonwealth of Independent States, relevant UN agencies and international organisations to strengthen their efforts and mutual cooperation relating to follow-up of the regional conference. The Assembly also invites all States that have not yet done so to accede to and fully implement the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol on the status of Refugees. It encourages the involvement of NGOs in the follow-up of the conference and invites them to support the process of "the multinational constructive dialogue" among the range of countries concerned.

Concerned by the magnitude of exoduses and displacements in many regions of the world, the General Assembly adopted a resolution in 1999 (A/54/180), requesting the Secretary-General to prepare a report on human rights and mass exoduses at the 56^th session. In this responding report (A/56/334), the Secretary-General notes the international community's growing reference to the link between racism and ethnic conflicts as a root cause of forcible flows of population. The report also describes actions by the international community to enhance responses to forcible movement of refugees and displaced persons.

As in the 54^th session, the Assembly adopted a resolution Human rights and mass exodus (A/RES/56/166), which focuses on the disturbing magnitude of exoduses and displacements of people in many regions of the world and the suffering of refugees and displaced persons. Again, gross violations of human rights, persecution, political and ethnic conflicts, famine, economic insecurity and generalised violence are flagged as the root causes that lead to mass exodus and displacements of people. In the text, the special rapporteurs, special representatives and working groups of the Commission on Human Rights and the UN human rights treaty bodies, acting within their mandates, are encouraged to seek and include information on human rights problems that may result in mass exoduses.

Pursuant to the General Assembly's request, the report of the Secretary-General on Globalisation and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (A/56/254) was submitted to the Third Committee. Reaffirming the objectives of last year’s resolution: (1) the reduction of the gap between the rich and poor, both within and between countries; and (2) the commitment to create an environment favourable to development and the elimination of poverty, the report recommends countries invest in people, improve access to infrastructure and technology, balance domestic markets with the economic benefits of globalisation, and create appropriate democratic governance.

The resolution on Globalisation and its impact on human rights (A/RES/56/156) was adopted by a recorded vote of 116 in favour, 46 against and 9 abstentions, and reflected a division between the so-called developed and the developing world. Countries rejecting the resolution did not agree with the heading of the resolution "…impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights" believing that not "all" human rights were affected by globalisation. Canada emphasised that the resolution did not recognise the complexities of globalisation or the benefits that globalisation could bring. The European Union was not certain that globalisation is inextricably linked to poverty, and suggested the draft focused exclusively on the evils of globalisation. Some delegates supporting the resolution, such as Egypt, recognised the need to galvanise greater delegate support for the resolution to render its effectiveness.

The report of the Secretary-General on the Right to Development (A/56/256) contains follow-up submissions to the 2000 resolution on the Right to Development from Argentina, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Guatemala and Mexico. The submission from Argentina emphasised promoting women’s right to development through combating discrimination. Cuba reiterated its statements in the Committee’s 2000 session which denounced certain obstacles to development such as "unacceptable practices" by transnational corporations and certain industrialised nations. The submission by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea emphasised that the withdrawal of "unreasonable sanctions" in addition to poverty alleviation and debt relief were necessary measures for conducive circumstances for the realisation of the right to development. Guatemala noted internal armed conflict as a major impediment to the right to development and cited its own experience in incorporating development priorities into peace agreements. Mexico cited structural inequalities in the international trading and financial system as major impediments to the right to development.

Last year's fragile consensus on the resolution entitled Right to Development (A/RES/56/150) broke down in the Third Committee this year. The resolution, introduced by South Africa on behalf of the members of the Non-Aligned Movement and China, reaffirms the need for States to co-operate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development, and recognises the importance of the international community in promoting effective international co-operation for realising the right to development. By a recorded vote of 123 in favour, four (Denmark, Israel, Japan, and the United States) against, with 44 abstaining, the resolution was adopted.

All States who made oral contributions on this resolution affirmed the importance of the right to development. Algeria affirmed the necessity for a permanent mechanism to recognise the right to development, mentioned in operative paragraph 10 of the resolution. The notion of such a permanent mechanism was explicitly opposed by Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Both the European Union and the United States voiced their concerns over the non-consensual nature of negotiations on the right to development -- in particular on the defining of this right. While both Egypt and Benin expressed their regret that the resolution was not adopted by consensus, Egypt explicitly stated its belief in the right to development as a basic human right without which other rights cannot be enjoyed. Benin expressed its retrospective desire to have seen a vote on only paragraphs of the resolution over which there was no consensus.

The Committee considered a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food (A/56/210) in which the Rapporteur calls on the Assembly to reiterate the urgency of the elimination of hunger and malnutrition in the world today. The report references the legal basis for the right to food as outlined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as the right to an adequate standard of living and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger. The report calls for concrete steps in the form of national legislation which provides a framework that recognises the State's obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the right to food of its people. The Rapporteur recommends, among other things, that States adopt an international code of conduct on the right to food, as voluntary guidelines for achieving food security for all.

In his presentation to the Committee, the Special Rapporteur questioned the legitimacy of the food drops in Afghanistan. He noted that food drops by military forces compromises the credibility of humanitarian aid, which must be neutral and universal and must respond to the need of suffering people. Furthermore, he counselled against the danger to confuse humanitarian and military objectives. The Rapporteur also called on international trade and macroeconomic policies to respect the right to food, stating that economic policies and trade policies must not be allowed to endanger life through malnutrition, but must instead protect the ability of people to feed themselves.

In response to a question from Belgium on how human rights could be integrated into the work of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Special Rapporteur noted that although there had been efforts to introduce a social dimension into the international trade debate, so far those efforts had met with no success. The United States, which delivered one of the two opposing votes to the resolution, rejected the Rapporteur's conclusions that sanctions against Cuba and Iraq violated the right to food. In response, the Rapporteur reiterated his opinion that such economic sanctions do not affect political regimes but rather the vulnerable segments of society, namely women and children. The report also attracted the animosity of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), which alluded to the allegations in the report of famine killing large portions of its population as being groundless and unacceptable. The resolution on the Right to Food (A/RES/56/155) was adopted by a vote of 169 in favour, with two abstentions (Australia and New Zealand) and two opposing votes (Israel and the United States).

The resolution on Human Rights Education (A/RES/56/140) invites all Governments to reaffirm their commitments and obligations to develop national strategies for human rights education, which are comprehensive, participatory and effective, and which can be embodied in a national plan of action as part of their national development plans. This resolution, which was introduced by Suriname, was adopted without a vote. However, operative paragraph 4 of the resolution was weakened slightly whereby the role of NGOs in human rights education is now "recognised" instead of "encouraged".

Before the Committee was a report on the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, 1995-2004, and public information activities in the field of human rights (A/56/271). It includes communications received from Governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other information on human rights education undertaken by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights between December 2000 and mid-July 2001. Section II of the report concerns implementation of the Decade's Action Plan, and Section III covers other relevant public information activities undertaken by the Office.

The resolution on the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (A/RES/56/167), introduced by the Australian representative, was adopted without a vote. Through the resolution, the Assembly urges all Governments to promote the development of comprehensive and sustainable national strategies for human rights education and to establish and strengthen, as a priority in education policies, knowledge of human rights, both in its theoretical dimension and practical application. The resolution was slightly strengthened through an oral revision by the Australian representative to preambular paragraph 10, which was amended so as to reaffirm the central role of human rights education in promoting tolerance and diversity in society. It now makes direct reference to the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.

A report of the Secretary-General on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity (A/56/204), which takes into account the views of member States, relevant United Nations agencies and NGOs, came before the Third Committee. The response from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) describes its efforts to protect cultural diversity and promote cultural pluralism and dialogue, which it states are strategic and programmatic priorities.

The resolution on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity (A/RES/56/156), which was adopted without a vote, reaffirms that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and the international community must treat all of them globally. But the text also states that cultural and religious background must be borne in mind. Although all States joined consensus, Canada emphasised that it was also important to ensure the resolution be consistent with international human rights law. In addition, the Canadian delegate said she would have preferred a more balanced phrasing with regards to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. According to the Canadian government some parts of the Conference, and its side events, had a negative impact on cultural diversity.

The resolution on Human Rights and the Administration of Justice (A/RES/56/161) was adopted without a vote. This resolution is on the whole the same as the Assembly’s 1999 resolution (A/RES/54/163). Slight changes were made to operative paragraph 10, so that more emphasis is placed on the Assembly encouraging the Office of the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights to support relevant training activities. Hence, this follows on from last year’s resolution on Strengthening the Rule of Law (A/RES/55/99) where the committee affirmed the role of the High Commissioner as the co-ordinator of action regarding strengthening the rule of law.

While this year's resolution was adopted without a vote, the US in an explanation of position -- the content of which echoed its interventions on various other resolutions this year -- said that countries should not be asked to bear in mind treaty obligations of treaties the country had not accepted.

The Assembly considered the report of the Committee Against Torture (A/56/44) submitted under Article 24 of the Convention. As in previous years, the report documented the significant shortcomings in the reporting mechanism through which States are required to make submissions to the Committee – whereby reports are either received several years after their deadlines or not at all. The Australian delegation expressed concern over possible duplication of work between the Committee Against Torture and the Special Rapporteur on Torture and recommended a streamlining of member States' reporting requirements to treaty bodies.

While this initiative was welcomed by a number of member States, in particular smaller States, the Special Rapporteur advised the Third Committee that only slight overlap exists between the two monitoring mechanisms (specifically, in the area of Article 20 of the Convention Against Torture).

The Special Rapporteur, Sir Nigel Rodley, presented his interim report on the question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (A/56/156) to the Third Committee. The report focused primarily on intimidation, enforced or involuntary disappearance, torture and sexual discrimination against sexual minorities, prevention and transparency. The Special Rapporteur also reported that China, Israel, India, Indonesia, Egypt, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Nepal and Georgia have not yet responded to mission requests. Furthermore, the Russian Federation has not yet answered his joint request, made with the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, for a mission. The Special Rapporteur also emphasised that the prohibition of torture relates not only to acts causing physical pain but also acts causing mental suffering to the victim (such as intimidation and threats) by referring to articles in CAT, ICCPR and the Geneva Conventions as well as views expressed by the Human Rights Committee. The Special Rapporteur made strong inferences that member States, especially post-September 11^th, resist the temptation to use torture as a means of exacting justice.

In her report to the Committee, Mary Robinson noted that the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment remains the least ratified amongst the 6 human rights treaties with 126 State parties. Her office has therefore identified the supporting of this mechanism as a strategic objective.

In its resolution on Torture and Other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (A/RES/56/143), the Assembly strengthens the operative paragraphs of the resolution by inviting the Special Rapporteur to continue his work gender-specific forms of torture and to consider questions regarding the torture of children.

The Report on the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Torture (A/56/181) provides two annexes -- one on the list of organisations financed by the Fund in 2001 and another which details the Joint Declaration for the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, 26 June 2001.

This year, the Third Committee’s work on the traditional omnibus resolution to help and support the world’s children was delayed -- yet another casualty of the events of September 11^th. One Western State expressed concern (outside of open sessions) that the postponement of the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on Children and the lack of a final outcome document could be used by some other States as an opportunity to weaken the omnibus resolution, in anticipation of cosmetically "strengthening" it, following the UNGASS on children.

This problem was avoided with the unanimous adoption of a procedural resolution on the Rights of the Child (A/RES/56/138), introduced by Belgium. The resolution reaffirms previous resolutions on the rights of the child, welcomes progress made in the preparation for the special session on Children, takes note of various reports of the Secretary-General and welcomes the addition of seven State parties to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Assembly requests the Special Representative on the impact of armed conflict on children submit reports to the Assembly and Commission on Human Rights and requests that the Secretary-General conduct an in-depth study on the question of violence against children, offering recommendations for consideration by member States for appropriate action, including effective remedies and preventive and rehabilitative measures.

In addition, according to draft resolution A/56/L.7, the General Assembly decided to hold the postponed special session on children on May 8-10, 2002. If adopted, an estimated cost of $539,400 is required to convene the special session. A detailed proposed budget program outlines the specific costs.

The report of the Secretary-General on children and armed conflict (A/56/342 -S/2001/852) illustrates the monitoring of obligations and commitments, child protection in the United Nations peace and security agenda, and the impact on children of illicit exploitation of natural resources in zones of conflict. The report, which was also presented to the Security Council, addresses child soldiers and abducted children, and their demobilisation and reintegration. It also refers to root causes and prevention of cross-border abduction and trafficking, and the link between HIV/AIDS, children and conflict.

In an interactive dialogue with the Third Committee, Olara Otunnu, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the impact of armed conflict on children, appointed in September 1997, promoted the Optional Protocol to the Convention on Children in Armed Conflict. The protocol raises the age level for compulsory recruitment of children from 15 to 18 years, banning participation in armed conflict under the age of 18. Otunnu stated that unless adherence to the Optional Protocol and other international norms and commitments made by parties to armed conflict is ensured, the efforts to adopt and bring the Optional Protocol into force will have been in vain. As of 18 October 2001, ten States had become parties to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, thereby allowing it to enter into force in January 2002.

Cuba and Pakistan expressed concern that the Special Representative put too much emphasis on consequences for children of armed conflict rather than the root causes. The EU asked how the Rights of the Child were being integrated into the human rights programme in general. In response Otunnu said the Convention on the Rights of the Child was the most useful instrument in promoting a rights-based approach. Also, the office placed great emphasis on ensuring participation from children themselves. Otunnu also underlined that the gap between the elaboration of standards and the implementation of them on the ground is still far too wide. When asked if the standards were being fully taken into account by Security Council (SC) resolutions, Otunnu said the SC now is beginning to routinely look at how children are affected in all resolutions, and not just on an ad-hoc basis. The delegates from Libya, Palestine and Syria complained that the Representative's report lacked concern for children living in the Occupied territories.

The report of the Secretary-General on the Status of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (A/56/203) details the efforts of member States, who have signed the Convention, to implement it. As of 17 October, 191 States have either ratified or acceded to the Convention. The report also provides details of specific efforts to promote and protect the rights of children in vulnerable situations, including the plight of children living and working on the streets, refugees and internally displaced children, and children with disabilities. Further, the report discusses the prevention and eradication of the sale of children and of their sexual exploitation, including child prostitution and child pornography, as well as the protection of children affected by armed conflict, and the progressive elimination of child labour.

In a move that echoed its stance on several other resolutions, the United States requested a vote on operative paragraph one in the resolution A/RES/56/139 on the girl child. The US wanted to disassociate itself from language whereby the Assembly stresses the "full and urgent implementation of the rights of the girl child as guaranteed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women". In explaining his country’s position, the US delegate said that since the US was not party to either of the conventions mentioned, it could not agree that it was urgent to implement them, and had no legal obligation under them. In reality, this move highlighted the US’s maverick position on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The US stands as the only industrialised country in the world and one of only two UN member States yet to make this legal commitment to children. The other country is Somalia, which is presently without a recognised government.

After the vote on operative paragraph one, which only the US voted against, the resolution was adopted by consensus. Among other items, the resolution addresses the need for bilateral efforts to be undertaken to achieve the goals of the World Education Forum, and calls upon States to address the obstacles affecting the achievement of goals set forth in the Beijing Platform Action to enact and enforce legislation to protect girls from all forms of violence. States are also urged to develop age-appropriate safe and confidential programmes and support services to assist girls who are subjected to such violence. Girl-child initiatives were also incorporated into the Second World Congress against Sexual Exploitation of Children in Yokohama, Japan.

Singapore complained that the text inappropriately suggests that State parties should be obliged to review permissible reservations, with a view to withdrawing them. This was hardly a surprising intervention from Singapore, since the country continues to field criticism on its reservations to various treaties, including most recently during the July 2001 session of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, when Singapore submitted its most recent country report.

The Committee also discussed the report of the Secretary-General on the Status of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (A/56/328), which states that as of 1 August 2001, 168 States parties had ratified, acceded or succeeded to the Convention. In addition, 3 further States were signatories to the Convention. The report also contains an update on the status of the Convention's Optional Protocol, which has, as of August 2001, been signed by 68 State parties, and ratified or acceded to by 24 States. According to the report, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women considered 22 reports submitted by 16 States parties between August 2000 and August 2001.

The representative of Finland introduced a resolution on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (A/RES/56/229). The Assembly urges States parties to the Convention to make every possible effort to submit their reports on the implementation of the Convention in accordance with Article 18 and with the guidelines provided by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The resolution was adopted without a vote.

The Secretary-General’s report of the Critical situation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) (A/56/279) provides details of the implementation of INSTRAW's activities during 2001 and provides information on the financial flows and prospects for the Institute beyond 31 December 2001. The report concludes that despite difficulties and uncertainties, INSTRAW has managed to secure minimal resources to respond to the mandates given by the Assembly and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Throughout, the report highlights the importance the Institute places on efforts to develop collaborative research, training and information dissemination, in particular through the Gender Awareness Information and Networking System (GAINS).

In its resolution on the Critical situation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (A/RES/56/125) the Assembly urges the Secretary-General to appoint a Director of the Institute as soon as possible in order to provide it with the required leadership, in particular throughout the period of restructuring. It also encourages Member States to support the Institute by making voluntary contributions to the United Nations Trust Fund for the Institute. The resolution was adopted without a vote.

The report of the Secretary-General on violence against women migrant workers (A/56/329) describes the efforts taken to eradicate violence against women migrant workers. It stresses that violence against women migrant workers remains an issue of concern to Member States, the UN and the International Organization for Migration. Measures to address violence against women migrant workers include education intervention and approaches targeted at potential women migrant workers in their countries of origin, including the use of modern communication and information technologies. According to the report, in August 2001, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Member of their Families, which requires the ratification or accession of 20 States parties in order to enter into force, had been ratified or acceded to by 16 States parties.

The resolution on Violence against Women Migrant Workers (A/RES/56/131), which was introduced by the Philippines, was adopted without a vote. The Assembly urges Governments, in particular those of the countries of origin and destination, to further strengthen their national efforts to protect and promote the rights and welfare of women migrant workers, including through sustained bilateral, regional, interregional and international co-operation, and to establish and maintain continuing dialogues to facilitate the exchange of information.

Although not the subject of a resolution in the Committee, during discussions of women’s rights, many States expressed special concern about violence against women in conflict: References (by Norway, Netherlands, Canada) were made on the importance of the adoption of Security Council resolution 1325 (adopted October 2000) on Women, Peace and Security, which calls for a gender perspective that includes the special needs of women and girls during repatriation and resettlement, rehabilitation, reintegration and post-conflict reconstruction. These countries stressed that Member States must push for and monitor its implementation. The International Committee for the Red Cross underlined that human rights law and international humanitarian law provide adequate coverage for women in armed conflict. States just need to implement these existing norms. The Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on Gender Issues Angela King underlined the importance of the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime in addressing the trafficking of women, and the importance of ensuring gender mainstreaming in peace building.

The Report of the Secretary-General on the Follow-up to the progress made in the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly (A/56/319) provides updated information on follow-up activities undertaken by intergovernmental bodies, the UN system and NGOs. In the report, special emphasis is placed on the integration of a gender perspective throughout the United Nations system.

The resolution on the implementation of the outcome of the Fourth World Conference on Women and of the twenty-third session of the General Assembly (A/RES/56/132) was approved without a vote. In it, the Assembly stresses the importance of strong, sustained political will and commitment at national, regional and international levels in order to achieve the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of "Women 2000". It also calls upon NGOs to take action to achieve full and effective implementation of the Beijing commitments.

The Secretary-General’s report on the improvement of the status of women in the United Nations system (A/56/472) states -- as does the previous year’s report -- that notable progress has been made in improving the representation of women. As of June 2001, 40.2% of professional and higher-level staff on geographical appointments in the Secretariat were women. Women comprise 34.6 per cent of professional and higher-level staff in the larger population of staff with appointments. Even though the GA goal of gender balance in the appointment and promotion of professional and higher-level staff has not yet been met, there are signs of progress. Disappointment was expressed by delegations that consideration of the issues was hampered due to the late distribution of the Secretary-General's report (on 15 October 2001).

In A/RES/56/127 on the Improvement of the status of women in the UN System the Assembly calls upon the Secretary-General to renew his efforts to appoint more women as special representatives and envoys to pursue offices on his behalf so to achieve the GA goal of gender balance.

The report of the Secretary-General on traditional or customary practices affecting the health of women and girls (A/56/316) was the third report submitted on this issue to the Third Committee (the two prior reports were A/56/341 and A/53/354). This year's document provides information on the steps taken in several forums of the UN, and at the regional and national levels, to implement various recommendations. In particular, the report recommends States implement education and training efforts with those responsible for enforcing the laws and implementing the policies aimed at eliminating all forms of harmful practices, such as police and judicial personnel.

In the resolution on the Traditional or Customary Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Girls (A/RES/56/128), introduced by the Netherlands, the Assembly calls upon States to develop, adopt and implement national legislation, policies and programmes that prohibit harmful traditional or customary practices, such as female genital mutilation. The resolution urges States to prosecute the perpetrators of such practices and to establish or strengthen support services to respond to the needs of victims.

This year’s resolution, which was adopted without a vote, contained stronger human rights language than the resolution on the same topic adopted two years earlier (A/54/123). In particular, a paragraph connecting the vulnerability of women and girls to HIV/AIDS with harmful customary and traditional practices was added. The new text also calls on States to consider signing the Optional Protocol on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, and urges States to invite the Special Rapporteur on traditional practices affecting the health of women and the girl child to visit their countries.

The resolution also includes language that broadens alternatives to the practitioners who carry out harmful customary and traditional practices. Although, at first, the Assembly asked States to explore alternatives with "forms of income generation for traditional practitioners", the text was ultimately changed to call upon States to explore "alternative training and educational possibilities", since these practices are not always money-oriented activities. To the surprise of the Netherlands -- the main sponsor of the resolution -- the US delegation interjected several comments on what that delegation deemed as "premature" references to an African draft protocol that had yet to be approved. The US delegation also reiterated its position concerning human rights and harmful traditional or customary practices carried out by non-State actors, stating that though such practices constituted a serious form of violence against women and girls, they did not constitute a serious violation of their human rights. Lastly, in a clear reflection of the new Republican administration, the US delegate said it understood that the term "reproductive health services" did not endorse or support abortion services.

The Secretary-General’s report on the Activities of the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) (A/56/174) provides a review and update on the programme and activities of the Fund for the year 2000. According to the report, in 2000, UNIFEM had a unique opportunity to review progress towards gender equality through involvement in the General Assembly’s special session, held in June, to assess progress made since the Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing, 1995).

The report notes UNIFEM moved forward in its work on peace, particularly in the context of the introduction of the issue of women, peace and security onto the agenda of the Security Council. The Fund provided support to the Government of Namibia during its presidency of the Council in preparing an open debate on the issue. A non-governmental organisation briefing under the Arria Formula preceded the debate, which culminated in the Council’s adoption of resolution 1325 (2000), on women and peace and security. The report also underscores building women’s capacity to access markets as a key component of UNIFEM’s economic empowerment work. In the area of finances, 2000 saw a significant increase in total contributions of more than 20 per cent over the previous year.

The representative of Jamaica introduced the resolution on the United Nations Development Fund for Women (A/RES/56/130), which was adopted without a vote. Through the text, the Assembly emphasises the importance of the Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence against Women, and calls on Governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the public and private sectors to contribute or increase contributions to the Trust Fund. The Assembly also encourages the Fund to continue assisting Governments in implementing the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women in order to advance gender equality at all levels, including by strengthening cooperation between Governments and civil society, in particular women's organisations.

The Secretary-General’s report on the improvement of the situation of women in rural areas (A/56/268) is based on case studies undertaken by international organisations. According to the report, the expert group meeting, held in June 2001, on the situation of rural women in the context of globalisation focused on the impact of major global economic trends like trade liberalisation. The experts agreed that in the context of globalisation, rural women encounter new opportunities as well as additional negative circumstances and limitations. These changes have the potential to expand employment and income opportunities for rural women, which will increase their autonomy. The group stresses that increased employment is, however, often associated with poor working conditions, low pay and short-term employment. The group proposed a research and policy agenda to maximise the positive effects of globalisation for women in the context of ongoing social and economic change in rural areas.

The Committee adopted without a vote a resolution on the Improvement of the situation of women in rural areas (A/RES/56/129), by which the Assembly stresses the need for specific studies to identify the best experience and practices for ensuring that rural women have better access to and better integration in the field of information and communication technologies. It also invites the International Telecommunication Union to consider that matter in connection with the preparations for the World Summit on the Information Society. Mirroring the tensions surrounding the debate on the resolution on globalisation and human rights, some States, such as Sudan, tried to have strong references to the negative effect of globalisation inserted into the text. However these efforts were not successful.

In a resolution on the Situation of older women in society (A/56/126), introduced by Suriname and adopted without a vote, the Assembly recognises that older women continue to suffer from discrimination and lack of opportunities and urges Governments to develop and implement policies and programmes in cooperation with civil society to ensure older women’s full enjoyment of human rights and quality of life.

Almost two months after the events of September 11^th, High Commissioner Ms Mary Robinson introduced her 2001 report to the Third Committee. In her opening remarks, Ms Robinson underscored the "horror and sense of insecurity" that struck the world in the aftermath of the events. Although emphasising the responsibility of "all governments to take appropriate measures to restore security" and noting that the Security Council and General Assembly had made a remarkable commitment to eradicate terrorism, the High Commissioner also made a special appeal that efforts be made to "avoid innocent people becoming victims of counter-terrorism measures". She urged that governmental action in this area be guided by human rights law, which, she said, "wisely strikes a balance between the enjoyment of freedoms and the legitimate concerns for national security". Robinson stressed that the international community be mindful of such fundamental principles as the presumption of innocence, non-discrimination and due process of the law.

The High Commissioner also outlined the specific situations where her office has taken steps to assist in the promotion and protection of human rights. She expressed her concern about the civilian population, especially the plight of women, children and older persons, and took the opportunity to "urge all parties to the current conflict to respect the principles of human rights and humanitarian law". She also described how her office has been liasing closely with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, the Personal Representative of the Secretary-General and the United Nations Humanitarian Co-ordinator to develop measures to address the concerns faced by the people in Afghanistan.

Ms Robinson also explained her office’s involvement with the transition to peace and justice in East Timor. Although she noted many achievements, she also stated that much remains to be done and recommended that close attention be paid to how the justice system deals with those suspected of crimes.

Regarding the grave developments in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the High Commissioner expressed her increasing concern, and reiterated her call for the establishment of an international monitoring presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Ms Robinson updated the Third Committee on the status of implementation of the Commission’s resolution on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation. Although she expressed appreciation for the "frequent dialogue" she was having with the Russian Government, she also expressed concern that the Special Rapporteur on torture, the Special Representative on Internally Displaced Persons, and Special Rapporteur on extra judicial, summary or arbitrary executions had received no answer of their requests to invitations to the area.

Ms Robinson also stated that her office had launched the Sub-regional Human Rights Center in Central Africa based in Yaounde (information contained in Addendum 1 of her report). On the issue of the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance that was held in Durban, South Africa, Robinson discussed how her office is moving forward with the anti-discrimination agenda generated by this conference and taking steps to establish an anti-discrimination unit to strengthen her office’s capacity to promote equality and non-discrimination.

Finally, Ms Robinson summarised the strategic objectives which her office focused on this year. These included: supporting the UN human rights mechanisms and the ratification of international human rights treaties; tackling impunity and the establishment of the International Criminal Court; addressing the rights of indigenous peoples; strengthening the human rights approach to the struggle against HIV/AIDS; focusing on the link between human rights, development, and the eradication of poverty; reinforcing the policy framework to combat trafficking in human beings; enhancing corporate social responsibility; and addressing the rights of the child.

The High Commissioner concluded her speech by explaining that her office has been focusing on legal frameworks, and concrete national policies, plans, programmes and institutions while aiming to chart the way forward and assist States, in cooperation with civil society, to bring the message of human rights home on the national level.

The report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/56/36) addresses the situations in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Haiti, Indonesia, and the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation, and outlines the steps the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has taken to assist in the promotion and protection of human rights. The report also notes that 2001 has been a stimulating year for OHCHR, with the right to equality and efforts to combat discrimination being among the primary themes that characterised the work of the Office, particularly in light of the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance. The report States that the significance of the World Conference is even greater now. As the world shapes its reaction following the terrorist attacks on the United States, the collective resolution taken in Durban to enhance the appreciation for diversity and the value of respect now has taken on a stronger meaning. The report also outlines how OHCHR is addressing questions such as human rights and conflict; the rights of indigenous peoples; the human rights approach to HIV/AIDS; human rights; development and poverty reduction; trafficking in human beings, corporate responsibility and human rights; human rights and bio-ethics; and the rights of the child.

On 12 November, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, Hina Jilani, submitted her first report to the General Assembly entitled Human rights defenders (A/56/341). Since she initiated her work in September 2000, the Special Representative has received numerous complaints relating to human rights defenders in all parts of the world. Her interim report documents issues of special concern in the protection of human rights defenders and the implementation of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders^[1].

In the first section of her interim report on special issues, the Special Representative focuses on impunity in cases of threats and attacks on human rights defenders, legal actions against human rights defenders, intelligence activities aimed at human rights defenders, and propaganda and smear campaigns against human rights defenders. The Special Representative notes with concern that governments have, in general, either failed or neglected to investigate complaints of attacks and threats against human rights defenders and to punish the perpetrators. Human rights defenders are increasingly subjected to legal action as a result of their activities for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Special Representative has received reports indicating that criminal prosecution and judicial repression are being used to silence human rights defenders and to pressure them into discontinuing their activities. The Special Representative documents that human rights defenders are also complaining of activities of intelligence agencies, both civil and military, that have obstructed their work, violated their privacy and placed them at a higher risk of harassment and intimidation. Also, smear campaigns against human rights defenders have become a tool increasingly used to discredit their work.

In the second section on the implementation of the Declaration, the Special Representative looks at the impact of militarism on the protection and promotion of human rights and the compatibility of national legislation with the principles of the Declaration. The Special Representative draws the attention of the General Assembly to the distinct connection between militarism and the severity of human rights violations. In areas of conflict or political tension, emergency or special laws are imposed, suspending fundamental freedoms and restricting recourse to civilian courts. At the same time, the military and paramilitary forces commit human rights violations, often with impunity. The Special Representative also notes that sufficient attention has not been given to modification of national laws that impair or contradict the purposes and principles of international instruments and commitments applicable in the field of human rights, which causes serious problems for the effective implementation of the Declaration. In her concluding remarks, the Special Representative urges governments to increase their tolerance for dissent and cease to view human rights defenders as their adversaries, and seriously commit to eliminate the many dangers that threaten human rights defenders.

During the dialogue with Ms Jilani, States asked questions on the scope and method of her mandate. Egypt and Cuba complained that Jilani emphasised the protection and defence of human rights defenders rather than their responsibilities. This argument resurrects an old strategy that attempts to place additional burdens on defenders and uses a language of responsibilities and duties that is traditionally applied to governmental obligations.

Responding to the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, Norway introduced the resolution on the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (A/RES/56/163) and it was adopted without a vote. This resolution notes with deep concern that, in many countries, persons and organisations engaged in promoting and defending human rights are facing threats, harassment and insecurity, as a result of those activities. It also notes that the considerable number of communications received by the Special Representative indicate the serious nature of the risks faced by human rights defenders. The resolution emphasises the importance of combating impunity, and urges States to take appropriate measures to address the question of impunity for threats, attacks and acts of intimidation against human rights defenders. The resolution also calls upon States to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of human rights defenders. In explaining her delegation’s position after adoption of the resolution, the Representative of Syria stated that it had joined the consensus, but that the Declaration meant that States should not interfere with the internal operations of other States.

The report of the Secretary-General on strengthening United Nations action in the field of human rights through the promotion of international cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity (A/56/292) outlines the concerns of Cuba, Qatar, Guatemala and Iraq on the need for UN intervention to ensure the "respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States and their electoral processes". Recommendations included the creation of UN publications on progress made and increased communication between representatives from member States on this issue.

There was very little open debate on the resolution on Strengthening UN action through the promotion of international cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity (A/RES/56/153), which was adopted without a vote. The Assembly reiterates its conviction that an unbiased and fair approach to human rights issues contributes to the promotion of international co-operation as well as to the effective promotion, protection and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

South Africa and members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and China introduced a resolution on Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (A/RES/56/149). The Committee adopted the resolution without a vote. The resolution calls upon States, specialised agencies and intergovernmental organisations to continue to carry out constructive dialogue and enhance the understanding and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It also invites States and UN human rights mechanisms to continue to pay attention to the importance of mutual cooperation and dialogue in the promotion of human rights. The Committee decides to continue its discussion of the matter at the 57^th session.

The Assembly adopted the resolution on National institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights (A/RES/56/158) without a vote. This text encourages national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights established by member States to play an active role in preventing and combating all violations of human rights as enumerated in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and other relevant international instruments. It also urges the Secretary-General to continue to give high priority to requests from member States for assistance in the establishment and strengthening of national human rights institutions as part of the program of advisory services and technical assistance in the field of human rights. It also requests the Secretary-General to continue to provide the necessary assistance for holding meetings of the International Co-ordinating Committee of National Institutions during the sessions of the Commission on Human Rights, in cooperation with the High Commissioner.

According to the report of the Secretary-General on enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections (A/56/344), the electoral process is integral to regional peace and stability, and elections are best implemented with the support of member States and the UN Electoral Division. The report recommends increased co-ordination between the UN Electoral Division and the Department of Political Affairs and Peacekeeping Operations, and with outside electoral institutions and partners.

The resolution on Strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections and promotion of democratisation (A/RES/56/159) was introduced by the representative of the United States and was adopted with a recorded vote of 162 in support, 0 against and eight abstentions. This resolution draws upon requests similar to that of the previous resolution with the same name, only it requests greater involvement of international organisations in helping to monitor the electoral process in developing regions.

In explaining its Government’s abstention in the Third Committee, the representative of Cuba asserted that it was not within the mandate of international organisations like the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to promote governance in these regions. The representative also made veiled references to the recent United States elections to point out that "highly developed countries" also showed serious difficulties could happen in the electoral process, and that "electoral assistance was not just for developing countries".

The Assembly adopted a resolution on the Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order (A/RES/56/151) by a recorded vote of 109 to 53, with seven abstentions. Among other items, the text primarily affirms that a democratic and equitable international order requires the realisation of the following: the right of all peoples to self-determination; the right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources; the right of all peoples to peace; and in sum, the right to an equitable and gender balanced international order that is culturally diverse and promotes access to services that enable people’s to live in a healthy environment.

It calls upon the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to build upon the issue of the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order by taking into consideration the resolution when convening any seminar, workshop or any session related to democracy. In addition, the resolution requests the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution to the attention of Member States, UN organs and in particular, the Bretton Woods institutions to disseminate it on the widest possible basis. Belgium, on behalf of the EU, said that although it agreed to the need to work towards an equitable economic order for all nations, the Third Committee was not the appropriate forum to address the matters contained in the resolution.

A resolution on respect for principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in electoral processes (A/RES/56/154) was introduced by Cuba and adopted by a vote of 87 in favour, to eight against (Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and United States), with 53 abstentions. The Assembly reaffirms the right of people to determine methods and to establish institutions regarding electoral process. States should ensure the necessary mechanisms and means to facilitate full and effective popular participation in the process. The United States delegation commented that the resolution did not prescribe the benchmarks against which elections were held nor did it express support for the legitimate and direct participation of the international community in free and fair elections.

By a resolution on the Sub-regional Centre for human rights and democracy in Central Africa (A/RES/56/230), the Assembly welcomes the creation of the sub-regional Center for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa at Yaounde and invites the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to take all necessary measures to ensure its smooth functioning. It was adopted without a vote. A report of the activities of the Center are contained in addendum 1 of High Commissioner Mary Robinson’s report. In her presentation to the Third Committee, Ms Robinson said she looked forward to the catalytic role the Center will play for the promotion of human rights and democracy in the sub-region.

The report by the Secretary-General on Human rights and unilateral coercive measures (A/56/207) presents responses from Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and Jamaica on the implications and negative effects of unilateral coercive measures on their populations. One concern of these States is that the application of unilateral coercive measures by the United States and its allies as a means of economic compulsion adversely effects the socio-economic indices of developing countries.

The resolution Human rights and unilateral coercive measures (A/RES/56/148) was introduced by South Africa and adopted with a vote of 114 in support and 51 against, and two abstentions. The Assembly urges all States to refrain from applying any unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter, which it asserts creates obstacles to trade relations among States and impedes the full realisation of the human rights. There were no notable changes in the framework of the resolution from the 55^th session. During debate on the issue, Iraq and Sudan condemned all unilaterally coercive measures, particularly the sanctions against Iraq, and underlined their de-humanising effects on the most vulnerable populations of women and children. Furthermore, both emphasised how these measures hampered efforts to ensure the advancement of women.

As in years past, the resolution Respect for the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms and in solving international problems of a humanitarian character (A/RES/56/152), introduced by Cuba, drew strong debate in the Third Committee. The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 100 to 54 with 15 abstentions. Although the resolution was adopted by a slightly larger margin last year, the cohort of countries opting to vote affirmatively to weaken human rights worldwide is discouraging. The resolution suggests that sovereign rights could shield human rights abuses, and underscores the centrality of State’s obligations of sovereignty and non-interaction.

The resolution was generally condemned as limiting the scope of the Charter, rather than embracing the spirit of it. Many States, including Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the European Union, who all voted against the resolution, expressed deep concerns that the text selectively interpreted the Charter’s provisions. The issue will be discussed again at the 57^th session.

The controversial resolution on equitable geographical distribution on the membership of the human rights treaty bodies (A/RES/56/146) elicited heated commentaries from various States in the Third Committee. In the resolution, the Assembly decides to encourage States parties to the United Nations human rights instruments to establish quota distribution systems by geographical region for the election of the members of the treaty bodies. The representative of Chile, who requested a vote on the draft, said it was not appropriate to bring before the General Assembly matters that were pertinent to State Parties to the human rights treaty bodies. The same concerns were voiced by the Belgium representative, who spoke on behalf of the EU, and the delegations of Israel and Korea. The Canadian delegation, speaking on behalf of Iceland, Norway, United States, Australia, New Zealand and San Marino, believed that equitable geographical distribution on the treaty bodies would be enhanced by achieving universal ratification of the treaties themselves. By a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 47 against, with five abstentions (Argentina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Senegal and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), the Assembly adopted the resolution.

Pursuant to an annual reporting obligation, the Secretary-General submitted the annual report on the Status of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (A/56/178). The report documents that as of 1 August 2001, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has been ratified or acceded to by 145 States, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been ratified or acceded to by 148 States. The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been ratified or acceded to by 98 States and the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been ratified or acceded to by 45 States. The list of States that have ratified or acceded to these international instruments, together with the dates, is contained in the annexes to the report. Upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or subsequently, 47 States made the declaration provided for in Article 41 of the Covenant, recognising the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under Article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant. No inter-State communication under Article 41 of the Covenant had been filed as at 1 August 2001.

The resolution on International Covenants on Human Rights (A/RES/56/144), introduced by Sweden was adopted without a vote. The resolution addresses the implementation of the international covenants, including reporting obligations under these instruments. The resolution encourages States parties to consider limiting the extent of any reservations they lodge to the International Covenants on Human Rights, to formulate any reservations as precisely and narrowly as possible, and to ensure that no reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the relevant treaty. It also encourages States parties to regularly review any reservations made with a view to withdrawing them, and urges States parties to fulfil their reporting obligations in good time. The resolution stresses the importance of taking into account a gender perspective in the implementation of the International Covenants on Human Rights at the national level, including in the national reports of States parties. The resolution supports the appointment of an independent expert by the Commission on Human Rights to examine the question of a draft optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and endorses the request by the Human Rights Committee to hold an additional week of meetings in 2002 in order to further reduce the existing backlog.

The annual Report of the Human Rights Committee (A/56/40) documents the period from 1 August 2000 to 31 July 2001. During this period, the Human Rights Committee considered 15 initial and periodic reports under Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and adopted concluding observations on them. The report also states that the Committee adopted 22 views on communications under the Optional Protocol procedure, declaring seven communications admissible and 17 inadmissible. A plan of action for three treaty bodies, including the Committee, and the creation of a petitions team has been established by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, with the petitions team already operational. The Human Rights Committee expresses its hope that this team will reduce and ultimately eliminate backlog in the examination of communications under the Optional Protocol. The report states that the Committee has adopted General Comment No.29 on Article 4 of the Covenant, concerning derogations from provisions of the Covenant in times of public emergency and has established guidelines that States parties are required to respect during a state of emergency. To better deal with the situation of States who have failed to honour their reporting obligations, the Committee decides that it may examine the application of the Covenant in those States parties that have failed to report to the Committee in spite of the repeated reminders.

In the report of the Secretary-General on the Status of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (A/56/177) it is noted that as of 1 June 2001, the Convention has been ratified or acceded to by 132 States. In particular, during September 2000 the instruments of accession for Switzerland and Guinea were received by the United Nations. Yugoslavia’s instrument of accession was received in March 2001.

The issue of human rights and terrorism elicited a spirited debate in the open session this year. These discussions mirrored the vigour and intensity of those taking place in closed sessions. Before the issue was debated informally or formally, some EU States expressed concern that, in the context of the September 11^th attack on New York, there may be greater momentum towards underscoring the relationship between non-State actors and violations of human rights. Such a shift, they claim, could deflect legal responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights away from governments and accord groups that commit armed insurgencies or individuals that carry out acts that intentionally target civilians and other non-combatants a quasi-official status. These States’ concerns are valid but they should not be allowed to prevent scrutiny by the international community of actions by armed insurgencies and individuals that would, within the present interpretations of international human rights and humanitarian law, clearly constitute massive violations of human rights if committed by a State.

The US made efforts, with Algeria, who drafted the text, to achieve consensus on the resolution. However fundamental differences could not be worked out, and the EU as well as 68 other countries abstained when the resolution Human rights and terrorism (A/RES/56/160) was bought to a vote. One hundred and two States voted in favour of the text. The resolution, which urges the international community to enhance co-operation at the regional and international levels in the efforts against terrorism, stood in contrast to the 1999 resolution with the same name in that the new text includes a controversial passage on taking "appropriate" precautions and actions when granting refugee status to asylum seekers "involved in or having claimed" terrorist acts. This text also contains references to all relevant Security Council resolutions, the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, and the Millennium Declaration.

Pursuant to a General Assembly request for views of Member States, the report of the Secretary-General on human rights and terrorism (A/56/190) summarises replies received from the various Governments, including Azerbaijan, Cuba, Egypt, India, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. In general, the responses indicate a willingness to co-operate with any effort by the international community to combat international terrorism. As such, the summary of replies received are cursory and rhetorical. However, the report does at times provide a snapshot of the ways in which responding States view the link between terrorism and human rights. India, for instance, expresses disagreement with those who place "undue emphasis on the human rights of terrorists". Since the international community has not yet arrived at a consensual legal definition of a "terrorist" or "terrorism", India’s remark raises concern that a State may crack down on persons exercising legitimate rights of freedom of expression and association when it suits its political purposes. As High Commissioner Mary Robinson pointed out in her presentation to the Third Committee this year, in some countries, non-violent activities have been considered as terrorism, and excessive measures have been taken to suppress or restrict individual rights. The replies, in particular from India and Turkey, also reflect the controversial issues discussed in the corresponding resolution on whether the international community should accept that individuals and groups, not just States, violate human rights.

The Secretary-General transmitted the report of the Special Representative of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (A/56/460) to the General Assembly in accordance with the Commission on Human Rights resolution 2001/12 of 18 April 2001. Special Representative, Mr Jose Cutileiro, described developments in the region, suggesting that despite the need for structural change in Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH) and the eradication of terrorisation of refugees and IDPs in Kosovo, there is a new political push, overall, to improve the human rights situation and to create long-term peace and stability. Of concern, though, was the notable absence of meetings and interviews between the Special Representative and members of the Republika Serbska Parliament or Presidency. The Special Representative also indicated that not enough progress has been made in BiH since inaction of the General Framework Agreement for Peace (A/50/790-S/1995/999) or since cessation of the Kosovo conflict in 1998.

The Special Representative noted that, in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), weak rule of law still renders law enforcement against organised crime and criminal activity largely ineffective, and property law implementation and refugee return is slow and difficult. Yet, the recent construction of a sound constituent assembly and the agreement between the Republika Serbska and Federal Republic of Croatia on dual citizenship suggests that the entities are willing to merge economies, strengthen political cooperation and build stronger institutions. During an open dialogue session with the Special Representative, Belgium expressed concern that not enough pressure had been placed on international organisations to help facilitate these efforts. The Russian Federation said that the BiH report unfairly characterised the Serbs as terrorists, and failed to highlight the terror Serbs face today in post-war Kosovo.

In the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), the Special Rapporteur noted that security and weak law enforcement continues to undermine the return of thousands of Serbs and Albanians to their pre-war homes. The Special Representative stressed that the recent and improved cooperation between United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the local government, forthcoming elections, and the release of Albanian prisoners will help to ameliorate the hostilities that local Albanians and Serbs experience on a daily basis.

A resolution, entitled the Situation of human rights in parts of South-Eastern Europe (A/RES/56/172), was approved without a vote. In it, the Assembly encourages an extension of the Special Representative’s mandate in the region due to the dire state of human rights in BiH and FRY, as outlined in the Representative’s reports. The Assembly also urges all authorities in the region to co-operate fully with the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

The Special Rapporteur on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mr Roberto Garreton, based his report on two visits that he undertook to the DRC in March and June/July 2001. The report (A/56/327) concludes that the internal conflicts in the country have resulted in thousands of dead and wounded, burnt-out homes, orphans and poverty. The Special Rapporteur stated that the region seems no closer to peace as foreign occupying troops and Congolese factions continue to delay the fulfilment of their international obligations. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the parties to the conflict commit themselves to the Inter-Congolese Dialogue and support the activities of the United Nations Organisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC). Governments were unable to engage in a dialogue with Mr Garreton about his report since the Special Rapporteur had resigned shortly before the Third Committee session.

As in the previous year, Rwanda disapproved of the report. Uganda expressed dissatisfaction with the work of the Special Rapporteur, particularly paragraph 2 (d), which states that thousands of Congolese have been killed in an area for which Uganda is responsible. According to the DRC, the report reflected the overall human rights situation in the country, but did not fully emphasise violations of human rights committed by Uganda.

The Committee also had before it the Joint mission report to the Democratic Republic of the Congo by Special Rapporteurs on human rights in that country and on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and a member of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (A/56/220). The report states that in a 2001 resolution, the Commission on Human Rights recognised that the security situation in that country had not yet allowed such a mission. The report also notes that in same resolution requests the Secretary-General give all necessary assistance to the Special Rapporteurs to enable them to discharge their mandates, including investigating all recent murders and other atrocities carried out in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Resolution A/RES/56/173 concerning the Situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was adopted in the GA with a vote of 90 to three (Rwanda, Uganda, Iran), with 69 abstentions. The resolution expresses concern about the situation of human rights in the DRC, particularly in the areas held by the armed rebels and under foreign occupation, and at the persistent violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law, including the atrocities against the civilian population. The resolution emphasises that all the forces present in the territory of the DRC shall be held accountable for the violations of human rights in the territories under their control. The resolution condemns massacres and cases of summary and arbitrary executions, disappearances, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention without trials; such acts have inter alia been perpetrated against journalists, opposition politicians, human rights defenders and people who have co-operated with UN mechanisms.

A new Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, Gerhart Baum (Germany), was appointed by the Human Rights Commission on December 28, 2000. The Committee considered the Interim report of the Special Rapporteur (A/56/336). The interim report is based on various consultations undertaken and on a visit by the Special Rapporteur to Sudan and Nairobi from 9 through 17 March 2001.

In the report, the Special Rapporteur notes that the Intergovernmental Authority for Development's (IGAD) peace negotiations have so far failed to produce results, and that fighting between the Government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) has intensified. The democratisation process that was progressing in Sudan in 2000 stopped in 2001. The Special Rapporteur condemns the Government’s continued bombing of civilians, and the SPLA's serious disregard for international humanitarian and human rights law. The abduction of women and children continues to be a grave problem. The Government has not yet taken concrete measures to prevent such abductions by Government-supported militia.

The Special Rapporteur's statement to the Committee was intended to summarise his interim report and provide further information gathered during his second visit to Sudan from 2 to 14 October 2001. The Special Rapporteur began his statement by noting that the UN Security Council lifted sanctions against Sudan on 28 September, 2001 and that the aftermath of September 11^th may offer an opportunity for increased solidarity within the international community.

The Special Rapporteur said that the human rights situation in Sudan continues to be a matter of serious concern, and that numerous human rights violations there are linked to the war. Humanitarian access remains a major problem, with parts of the country inaccessible (Nuba Mountains, southern Blue Nile and Eastern Equatoria). Serious disregard for human rights by all parties to the conflict, particularly in oil rich areas, has caused people to flee, leaving Sudan with the highest number of displaced persons in the world. The Special Rapporteur stated that oil exploitation has continued to have a negative impact on the human rights situation, and underscored that the right to development cannot justify disregard for other human rights. The Special Rapporteur met with representatives of the SPLA in October and visited parts of southern Sudan. The SPLA made progress on the issue of child soldiers, but continues to be responsible for human rights and humanitarian violations.

During the dialogue with the Special Rapporteur, delegates from a number of States, including Sudan, objected to the link drawn between the development of oil resources and human rights violations, arguing that the right to development and decisions about distribution of revenues from resource development are sovereign matters, and that oil exploitation has brought benefits to Sudan.

The situation of human rights in the Sudan (A/RES/56/175), introduced by Belgium on behalf of the European Union, was adopted by the Assembly by a vote of 79 for and 37 against, with 48 abstentions. The resolution is similar to last year’s, but is more detailed, a matter that Sudan objected to in its statement before the vote. The Assembly states that it is deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Sudan due, in part, to the lack of progress in the peace process. The Assembly is deeply concerned about, inter alia, the plight of internally displaced persons, the forced displacement of populations particularly in areas around the oilfields, the continued abduction of women and children, the lack of efforts to restrain the establishment of militias responsible for serious human rights abuse, the use of civilian premises for military purposes, attacks on civilian targets, and attacks on and use of force against UN and humanitarian personnel by the SPLA. The Assembly calls upon the Government of Sudan to take a number of listed steps to comply with its international human rights obligations and to protect and promote human rights.

The US delegation lamented that the resolution did not go far enough to reflect the true tragic position of the human rights situation in Sudan, in particular as regards abductions of children and women.

An eight-part report on the Situation of human rights in Cambodia (A/56/209) highlights the primary human rights concerns in Cambodia and provides details of the two visits to the country by the Special Representative, Mr Peter Leuprecht, in 2001. The Special Representative addressed the Third Committee, welcoming the enactment of the new developments reflected in resolution A/55/95 of last year and for the protection of human rights in Cambodia. Areas of concern raised by the Special Representative included the rule of law, prison conditions and the lack of independence of the judiciary.

Questions of human rights in Cambodia also led to a report by the Secretary-General outlining the Role and achievements of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in assisting the Government and people of Cambodia in the promotion and protection of human rights (A/56/230).

This year’s resolution addressing the situation of human rights in Cambodia (A/RES/56/169) was adopted without a vote. The Assembly requests the Government of Cambodia to meet its reporting obligations under all international human rights instruments to which Cambodia is a party, and requests the Office of the High Commissioner in Cambodia to continue to provide assistance in this regard. The Assembly also calls for an end to racial violence against ethnic minorities and urges the Government to take all steps to prevent such violence.

An interim report on the Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Report of the Special Representative of the Commission (A/56/278) prepared by Mr Maurice Copithorne included information on the status of women, minorities, free expression, political dissidents, and prisons. On minorities, Copithorne said information provided in recent months suggested the situation of some groups had not improved, and may have deteriorated. Regarding punishments, the previous four months had seen a crackdown by authorities on what was seen to be amoral conduct, and a sharp increase in punishments that were contrary to international standards. Other aspects of the legal system had also suffered a serious backsliding.

The 2001 resolution on the Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (A/RES/56/171) was adopted with a vote of 72 in favour and 49 against, and 46 abstentions. In it, the Assembly expresses concern that no invitation has been extended by the Government to the Special Representative to visit the country since 1996, and calls upon the Iranian Government to abide by its obligations under the international human rights Covenants and other international human rights instruments. The Assembly also calls upon the Government to, among other things, ensure full respect for freedom of expression, to end the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by persons under 18, and to ensure that the capital punishment would only be imposed for the most serious crimes.

Mainly due to the efforts by the US, who worked with the Bahá'í community, the resolution on Iran this year integrated strong human rights language on the freedom of expression. Even with a margin of 18 points separating the yes and no votes on the resolution in the Third Committee, the US, along with various Iranian NGOs, lobbied hard to ensure that the margin was increased in the recorded vote in the GA. They were relatively successful -- the margin increased by 7 votes.

The resolution was opposed by the delegate of Iran and others who complained that progress made by Iran in the promotion and protection of human rights had not been included in the resolution. Further, the delegate of Libya stated that the European Union, which was a co-sponsor of the text, continued to hark on human rights violations in developing countries, while turning a blind eye to the human rights violations of developed countries.

The situation of human rights in Afghanistan received special attention this year in the Third Committee due to the events of September 11^th and the ongoing military operations in the country. In addition to his report on the Situation of human rights in Afghanistan (A/56/409) the Special Rapporteur, Mr Kamal Hossain, presented an Addendum (A/56/409 Add.1), written on 5 November 2001, that included observations made by Hossain during his visits to Pakistan and Iran at the end of October 2001.

The main report states that before September 11^th, Afghans suffered arbitrary detention, cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, summary executions and massacres. The report calls for more thorough investigations concerning summary executions carried out in Yakawlang in January 2001 and cites evidence concerning further summary executions in this area in May and June 2001. In addition, the report highlights that women were victims of systematic discrimination, for example by denying them access to employment, education and health services. The report also described the deepening humanitarian crisis and listed reasons for the long, ongoing armed conflict, war-devastated economy and severe drought over the last three years. At the same time the increasing humanitarian crisis was confronted with a gross deficit in humanitarian assistance.

In the Addendum, the Special Rapporteur regrets that the aerial bombardment of Afghanistan has led to a large scale evacuation from urban areas and to the loss of civilian lives. Warehouses of the ICRC were repeatedly struck and, near Harat, a cluster bomb was used. He calls for a proper inquiry into whether the military has complied with the requirements of international humanitarian law.

After extended debates in informals, governments passed the resolution A/RES/56/176 on the Question of human rights in Afghanistan without a vote. The text affirms the essential role of the UN in establishing a new transitional administration leading to the formation of a government, and condemns summary executions, the violations and abuses of human rights and international humanitarian law, and discrimination against women and children. It also stresses concerns about the existence of millions of Afghan refugees and internally displaced persons in Afghanistan. The language on women was encouraging, with the inclusion of one preambular paragraph recalling Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security and another stressing the importance of "ensuring the full and effective participation of women in all decision–making processes" regarding the future of the country. Also a strong call to end a culture of impunity is expressed in operative paragraph 12 (e), which calls on all Afghan parties to "to facilitate the provision of effective remedies to the victims of grave violations and abuses of human rights…and to bring the perpetrators to justice". As a result of governmental discussions and human rights NGO lobbying, a paragraph inviting the Special Representative to provide updates "as appropriate" of his reports to the GA and Commission on Human Rights was also included.

Mr Andreas Mavrommatis, the Special Rapporteur to Iraq, presented his report on the Situation of human rights in Iraq (A/56/340). He explained that the report was based on reliably compiled information from second-hand sources as he has not yet received a positive reply to visit the country. He stated that he also has requested to visit two neighbouring countries of Iraq, but has only received a positive reply from Iran to date.

A resolution on the human rights situation in Iraq (A/RES56/174) was passed by a vote of 100 in favour to two against (Libya and Sudan), with 63 abstentions. In this text the Assembly calls upon the Government of Iraq to abide by its freely undertaken obligations under international human rights treaties and international humanitarian law to respect the rights of all individuals and to bring about an end to summary and arbitrary executions. It also calls upon the Government to co-operate with the United Nations human rights mechanisms, in particular by inviting the Special Rapporteur to visit the country and allowing the stationing of human rights monitors pursuant to resolutions of the Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. The Assembly urges co-operation with the Tripartite Commission and its Technical Subcommittee to establish the whereabouts and resolve the fate of the remaining several hundred missing persons, including prisoners of war, Kuwaiti nationals and third-country nationals. The text does not vary from the previous year’s condemnation of such human rights violations.

The delegate of Iraq responded in typical fashion, condemning the text as politicised, and stating that the same applied to similar resolutions on all countries that were contrary to the United States. The delegate also complained that the European Union, with the support of the US, continued to present the resolution even though the text was the same as previous ones presented over the last 10 years.

On the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Special Rapporteur Mr Paulo Sergio Pinheiro transmitted his report (A/56/312) to the Committee. The report provided details of his first mission to Myanmar. However, this mission was unfortunately shortened due to the Rapporteur’s sudden illness. While the government of Myanmar gave full co-operation to the mission, the Rapporteur noted the slow progress in releasing political prisoners, continued repression and intimidation of political parties, increases in ethnic tensions, reported discrimination on political grounds in the higher education system and gross violations against civilians living in conflict zones. Of particular concern is the vulnerability of children in terms of child soldiering, child labour and severe malnourishment. Yet, the Rapporteur did note the following positive developments: the prisons and detention facilities visited appeared to be of adequate conditions; the ICRC has been granted access by the government to all prisons and labour camps since May 1999 (49 of which have been visited on or more occasions); and there was a notable decline in the rate of political arrests.

The resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar (A/RES/56/231), was introduced by the Swedish delegation. While it was adopted by consensus, many delegations from the region, including India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, all expressed concern that the text did not accurately reflect the progress made in that country during the past year, particularly regarding the process of national reconciliation and confidence-building measures. Myanmar also said the text dwelled too much on the previous Rapporteur’s comments. China expressed disappointment that suggested amendments were not incorporated into the final text, despite extensive consultations between delegations and with Myanmar’s delegation. The representative of Japan noted the resolution should not isolate Myanmar from the international community but instead encourage further improvement in the human rights situation.

While East Timor, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Haiti, and the Lebanese detainees in Israel were not central subjects in debates or resolutions of the 2000 Third Committee, reports by the Secretary-General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights brought these situations to the attention of delegates in the Third Committee.

With regard to East Timor, a report (A/56/337) was issued by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights outlining her follow-up visit to East Timor and visit to Indonesia regarding matters pertaining to East Timor. The report highlights the status of investigations and prosecution of serious crimes committed in East Timor in 1999, capacity building, the reception, truth and reconciliation process, the protection of ethnic and religious minorities, and political issues affecting human rights.

The role of the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) as a transitional government will expire on 31^st January 2002. The High Commissioner is therefore engaged in a process of assessing to what extent the new independent government of East Timor will need ongoing assistance from the UN. The investigations and prosecution of serious crimes committed in East Timor in 1999 has been slower than expected. The High Commissioner calls for further attention and resources dedicated to advancing this process. The East Timorese police force was, for the first time, exposed to human rights training by the OHCHR and UNTAET.

The High Commissioner recommends that East Timor focus on the development of strong mechanisms to protect human rights, including rights based on the provisions of the constitution, legislation, government structures and procedures. Furthermore, all steps should be taken to promote and protect the rights of women. The High Commissioner recommends the establishment of an international human rights tribunal, the preparation of conditions for safe return of internally displaced persons and refugees, and calls upon UNTAET, East Timor Transitional Administration (ETTA) and the new East Timorese government to actively pursue an environment of accountability and respect for the rule of law and human rights.

During the meetings of the Third Committee, the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) (S/2001/983) was presented to the Security Council (SC). The SC endorsed the Secretary-General’s plans for adjusting the United Nations mission’s size and configuration in the months prior to independence, which will be declared on 20 May 2002.

A Note by the Secretary-General on the Situation of Human Rights in Burundi came before the Third Committee. The report states that the main violations concern the right to life, to physical integrity and to personal freedom and security. In addition, there are continued violations of the right to freedom of movement and to freedom to choose one's residence. Armed violence has increased since the Special Rapporteur's previous visit.

Recommendations included a ban on the recruitment into the army of young people under the age of 18 be implemented, and extended to the police force.

A report on the human rights situation in Sierra Leone (A/56/281) examines various aspects of the conflict in the country, including those concerning refugees and internally displaced persons; children and armed conflict; violence against women; extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; and persons detained under the state of emergency. It concluded that 2001 witnessed a significant momentum in the implementation of the peace process in Sierra Leone. The cease-fire had largely been observed, and disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration programmes have been relaunched.

Regarding the situation of Haiti, the High Commissioner reports that the former independent expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti highlighted the deterioration of the administration of justice system. He also expressed concern regarding the politicisation of the police, arbitrary arrests, prolonged detention without trial, the climate of violence in the prisons, and the deplorable health conditions in those institutions.

The Committee had before it a note by the Secretary-General on the human rights situation of Lebanese detainees in Israel (A/56/217) which states that at the time of drafting, no reply had yet been received from Israel's Ministry for Foreign Affairs on the Commission on Human Right's call to comply with relevant resolution 2001/01 of 18 April 2001.

[1] Its full title is the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.