26 March 2015
Adopts Three Other Texts on Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, the Right to Work, and the Effects of Terrorism on Human Rights
The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted four resolutions in which it created the mandate of a Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy and established a forum on human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The other adopted texts pertained to the right to work and to the effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights.
In a resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age, the Council appointed for a period of three years a Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy and called on all countries to support this new mandate, including by providing all necessary information requested by the Special Rapporteur, to respond promptly to his or her urgent appeals and other communications, to consider favourably his or her requests to visit their countries, and to consider implementing the recommendations made in his or her reports.
By a vote of 35 in favour, none against and 12 abstentions, the Council decided to establish a forum to provide a platform for identifying best practices, challenges and opportunities to secure respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
In a resolution adopted by a vote of 25 in favour, 16 against and 6 abstentions, the Council decided to convene, at its twenty-ninth session, a panel discussion on the effects of terrorism on the enjoyment by all persons of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
In a resolution on the right to work, the Council expressed concern that global unemployment stood at 201.3 million in 2014 and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a report on the realization of the right to work.
Introducing texts were Romania, Morocco, Egypt, Greece, Brazil, and Jordan.
Speaking in general comments were China, United States, Russian Federation, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Latvia, Pakistan, Cuba, Mexico, Morocco, and Algeria.
Speaking in explanations of the vote before or after the vote were France, Ireland, United States, Bangladesh, South Africa, Viet Nam, Cuba, China, Latvia, Mexico, Russian Federation, and Pakistan.
The Council will resume its work at 9 a.m. on Friday, 27 March to continue to take action on remaining draft resolutions and decisions before closing its twenty-eighth regular session.
Action on Resolutions under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development
Action on Resolution on Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law
In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.24) on human rights, democracy and the rule of law, adopted by a vote of 35 in favour, none against and 12 abstentions, the Council decides to establish a forum on human rights, democracy and the rule of law to provide a platform for promoting dialogue and cooperation on issues pertaining to the relationship between these areas, and that the Forum shall identify and analyse best practices, challenges and opportunities for States in their efforts to secure respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The Council decides that the Forum shall be open to the participation of States, United Nations mechanisms, bodies and specialized agencies, funds and programmes, intergovernmental organizations, regional organizations and mechanisms in the field of human rights, national human rights institutions and other relevant national bodies, academics and experts and non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council; also decides that the Forum shall meet every two years for two working days allocated to thematic discussions; and decides that the theme of the first session of the Forum, to be held in 2016, will be “Widening the democratic space: the role of youth in public decision-making”.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (35): Albania, Argentina, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Estonia, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Maldives, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, Pakistan, Paraguay, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, and United States of America.
Abstentions (12): Algeria, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela and Viet Nam.
Before adopting the resolution, the Council took action on an oral amendment on operative paragraph 3 presented by China, and rejected it by a vote of 18 in favour, 23 against and 6 abstentions. The Council then took action on operative paragraph 3 separately, adopting it as introduced by the sponsors with a vote of 28 in favour, none against and 19 abstentions.
Romania, introducing draft resolution L.24, on behalf of a group of States, said that the core group had held three consultations. Bearing in mind the Millennium Declaration, it believed that the interdependence between the three concepts of human rights, democracy and the rule of law needed to be further explored. The objective of the resolution was therefore to provide a framework for States, representatives of civil society and academia to meet, discuss and share best practices in relation to the linkages that could be drawn between the three concepts. The Council was invited to adopt the draft resolution by consensus.
Morocco, also introducing draft resolution L.24, stated that the interrelation between human rights, democracy and the rule of law was well known. Echoing the concern manifested during the Millennium Summit, dialogue was needed to consolidate views on the interrelationship between the three concepts. Morocco was convinced that achieving democracy required rigorous respect of human rights and the rule of law.
China, speaking in a general comment, said that the way to participate in the Forum needed to be improved. Certain non-governmental organizations and individuals had abused the Forum and made irresponsible statements against sovereign States which violated the principles of the United Nations Charter. Clear regulations on the participation must be made, said China and proposed oral amendments to operative paragraph 3, which were in line with the spirit of the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly.
Morocco, speaking as a sponsor of L.24, regretted the amendments at this late stage and without consultation with the core group. The language contained in the operative paragraph 3 was the agreed language of the Human Rights Council and Morocco called for a vote on the proposed amendment.
United States, speaking in a general comment, said it was proud to co-sponsor resolution L.24, noting that the promotion of democracy and the rule of law were fundamental to the purposes of the Human Rights Council. It would also serve to promote dialogue on international cooperation. The United States also looked forward to the upcoming discussions on the widening of democratic space and the role of youth in public decision making.
Russian Federation, speaking in a general comment, noted that the new mechanism proposed in resolution L. 24 would duplicate the process launched in New York in 2012, which mandated the Sixth Committee to continue working on the linkage between the promotion of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. It expressed concern about the high probability that the given forum would be used to settle internal scores among representatives of different movements. It was thus necessary to adopt amendments on non-politicization of the new mechanism. Forms for the participation of civil society needed to strictly comply with United Nations guidelines.
Venezuela, speaking in a general comment, expressed its support for the amendment introduced by China. It was convinced of the need to ensure that the participation of civil society organizations in the work of the Human Rights Council followed established rules of procedure. Importance of their work was recognized within the respect of sovereignty of States. Respect for human rights had to be free from heinous practices of instrumentalising the Human Rights Council for antagonism. Venezuela was in favour of the amendment.
Saudi Arabia, speaking also on behalf of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain in a general comment, said that the draft resolution set the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Vienna Declaration and Programme for Action, as well as Human Rights Council Resolution 36 on human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Compliance with the United Nations Charter had to be ensured. For this reason the delegations of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirate and Bahrain thought it was necessary to support the amendment proposed by China.
Latvia, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, said it supported the main aim of the resolution and would support its adoption as tabled.
Pakistan, speaking in a general comment, said that the discussion on the relation between democracy, the rule of law and human rights was important and timely, and Pakistan would vote in favour of the resolution. Pakistan was not in favour of the creation of a permanent mechanism, which would place additional burden on the resources and capacity of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Experience had shown that a number of non-governmental organizations, even those who had passed the accreditation process, were misusing the Forum; allowing the non-accredited non-governmental organizations to access the Forum would not be wise. In addition, the Office did not have the capacity to scrutinize the non-governmental organizations. Pakistan would vote in favour of the amendments proposed by China.
France, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, welcomed the text of resolution L.24 as it stood.
Ireland, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, strongly opposed the amendment proposed by China, noting that the current text was carefully balanced and already agreed upon. The minorities, business and human rights, and social forums all had the same modalities, so there was no reason for the given forum to be more restrictive, as it would be contrary to the established practice of the Council. Ireland would vote against the amendment.
United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on the amendment, regretted the decision of some States to put forward an amendment after an extremely open discussion of the resolution. The amendment restricted the space to provide views on different topics. Its aim was to restrict civil society participation on a no objection basis. The United States strongly opposed the amendments and would vote in favour of the draft resolution.
Bangladesh, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the belief of Bangladesh in democracy was firm and called upon all States to vote for the resolution even if it departed from established norms.
South Africa, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, acknowledged the fact that consultations had been convened on the draft resolution and said that there were divergent views on the relationship between human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and whether the Forum was the appropriate venue for this discussion. The establishment of the Forum should be debated in the General Assembly, said South Africa, especially because the United Nations’ accreditation regulations were being circumvented, particularly in the various forums. The United Nations system was an intergovernmental one and therefore State-driven and it was inconceivable to equate non-State actors, which had no accountability, with States. South Africa could not support L.24 in its current form and called for a vote, and would vote against it.
Viet Nam, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it upheld the rule of law and the promotion of democracy, as well as enhanced transparency and credibility in the Human Rights Council. The proposed new forum, with its lack of clear procedures, would undermine the credibility of the Council and thus Viet Nam was not in favour of the draft resolution L.24 in its current form.
Cuba, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that draft resolution L.24 and its previous submission to the Council once again focused on democracy, which was contrary to important international agreements, which stated that there was not a single form of democracy. There was an attempt to make people’s self-determination redundant. Rule of law and the promotion of democracy were converted into a tool for politicization and for penalizing countries.
China, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reiterated the complementarity of human rights, the rule of law and democracy. China had proposed its recommendations during the consultation process, but these had not been accepted. China found this regrettable and difficult to understand. The process of consultation had not been transparent enough. The resolution was vulnerable and could be politically misused. China would therefore abstain from voting on the resolution.
Action on Resolution on the Right to Work
In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.26) on the right to work, adopted without a vote, the Council expresses concern that global unemployment stood at 201.3 million in 2014, representing an increase of 1.2 million compared with the previous year and of about 31 million compared with 2007; and expresses deep concern that approximately 74.5 million young people are unemployed and that the global youth unemployment rate is around 13.1 per cent. The Council requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a report in consultation with States, United Nations agencies, funds and programmes, particularly the International Labour Organization, as well as the treaty bodies, special procedures, civil society and other relevant stakeholders on the realization of the right to work, in accordance with their respective obligations under international human rights law and the relevant major challenges and best practices in that regard, and to submit it to the Human Rights Council prior to its thirty-first session.
Egypt, introducing draft resolution L.26, the first initiative on the right to work in the Human Rights Council, stressed that everyone had the right to work and to protection from unemployment, and that this right was enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The time had come for the Council to pay adequate attention to this right which had been neglected by the international community for too long. Employment, especially for youth, was essential in the building and maintaining of democratic order, and this was particularly important in the light of the approaching post-2015 development agenda. The draft resolution paid particular attention to segments of society which faced particular challenges in the realization of their right to work, namely women, youth and persons with disabilities, and set out the importance of social protection floors for the maintenance of adequate standards of living.
Greece, also introducing draft resolution L.26, said that unemployment, and especially youth unemployment, was a common feature in many countries in all continents, and this had an impact not only on the right to work, but on other related fundamental rights. This right was enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in many countries was directly protected at the Constitutional level. Despite the important work and accumulated expertise of the International Labour Organization in this area, it was still appropriate that the Council raised awareness on the human rights nature and aspects of the right to work.
Venezuela, speaking in a general comment, noted it was important for the Human Rights Council to take a positive and constructive approach towards the resolution, underlining the importance of the right to work. It expressed support for resolution L. 26.
Action on Resolution on the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age
In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.27) on the right to privacy in the digital age, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to appoint, for a period of three years, a special rapporteur on the right to privacy. The Council invites the Special Rapporteur to include in the first report considerations on the right to privacy in the digital age; calls upon all States to cooperate fully with and assist the Special Rapporteur in the performance of the mandate, including by providing all necessary information requested by him or her, to respond promptly to his or her urgent appeals and other communications, to consider favourably the mandate holder’s requests to visit their countries and to consider implementing the recommendations made by the mandate holder in his or her reports. The Council reaffirms the right to privacy, according to which no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, and the right to the protection of the law against such interference, as set out in article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; recognizes the global and open nature of the Internet and the rapid advancement in information and communications technology as a driving force in accelerating progress towards development in its various forms; and affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy.
Brazil, introducing draft resolution L.27 on behalf of Brazil and Germany and a group of States, said that the right to privacy in the digital age was one of the most important issues today. The draft resolution had received 55 co-sponsors from different regions and had been initiated at a side-event of the Human Rights Council. Little work had been done to address the right to privacy while reports by the High Commissioner and Special Rapporteurs stressed the need for more specific analysis of the issue. The draft resolution called for the establishment of a Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy focusing on challenges arising from the digital age and new technologies, with a view to gathering information, studying trends, making recommendations, fighting obstacles and violations, and promoting principles. Surveillance, including extraterritorial surveillance and collection of personal data, in particular when carried out on a mass scale, could have a negative impact on the enjoyment of human rights. States had to respect the right of privacy when collecting personal data. The Human Rights Council had an important role to play in protecting the right to privacy in the digital age.
Russia, speaking in a general comment, said that recently the United States and its allies had committed massive violations of the right to privacy and expressed concern that technology was being used worldwide to obtain the control of the citizen. In order to prevent the violation of privacy in the digital age, States needed to develop effective measures for the protection of their citizens and the implementation of such measures should be the main task of the Special Rapporteur.
Cuba, speaking in a general comment, said that the development of information and communication technologies was mostly positive as it offered colossal opportunities for development of knowledge. On the other hand, it could be used for the violation of citizens’ right to privacy and the principles of sovereignty and integrity of States, and regulation in this area should aim to address the use of information and communication technologies for purposes that run counter to the aims of the United Nations Charter. The Special Rapporteur should work along what was stipulated in the title of the resolution and deal with the violation of privacy committed by certain Western powers by massive surveillance programmes beyond their borders.
Saudi Arabia, speaking in a general comment, said that it was necessary to refer to legislation in order to maintain public order and morality in the digital age and thus Saudi Arabia had developed a number of measures for digital practices. The new mandate was not necessary. Saudi Arabia regretted that its ideas were not taken into account.
China, speaking in a general comment, said that digital technology posed new challenges, such as illegal mass electronic surveillance which violated States’ sovereignty. Mass surveillances on the Internet had highlighted the need to protect the right to privacy, which was why China supported the establishment of a mechanism for privacy in the digital age.
South Africa, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the draft resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age raised pertinent issues of priority for South Africa. This right was in the obligations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. South Africa had participated constructively in this initiative, however it was disappointed that the initial focus had dramatically shifted. While recognizing the importance of this thematic issue, the creation of a new mandate to deal with the right of privacy was not the appropriate way. It would have been appropriate to incorporate it with the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression. The resolution conflated the right to privacy with Internet governance which was the work of other agencies such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and the International Telecommunications Union. South Africa was no longer able to associate itself with the text.
United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, joined consensus on the resolution which reaffirmed human rights, especially privacy rights and the right to freedom of assembly and association as set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The establishment of a mandate on privacy rights came at a crucial time. Human Rights defenders and ordinary citizens faced interference with privacy. There was a need to strengthen the right to privacy from unlawful interference in all contexts. The term digital age was not limited to any particular technology nor did it limit the work of the Special Rapporteur to technology-based infringements on privacy rights. Furthermore, the resolution should be consistent with Articles 2, 17, and 19 of the International Covenant and the United States interpreted it accordingly. On the question of whether any interference was permissible, it depended on whether it was lawful and not arbitrary.
Algeria said, with regard to resolution L.24 on human rights, democracy and the rule of law, the delegation had made a mistake during the vote, and wished to correct the voting record.
The President said that this would be duly reflected in the report of the session.
Gabon welcomed the adoption of resolution L.14 which requested the Independent Expert on the effect of foreign debt to report to the General Assembly on the issue of the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, and said that a mistake had been made during the voting. Gabon wished to correct the voting record on L.24.
The President said that this would be duly reflected in the report of the session.
Action on Resolution on the Effects of Terrorism on the Enjoyment of Human Rights
In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.30) on the effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights, adopted by a vote of 25 in favour, 16 against and 6 abstentions, the Council strongly condemns all terrorist acts, and expresses grave concern at their detrimental effects on human rights, including the right to life, liberty and security of person; condemns all terrorist acts on State institutions, public sites, individual property, national monuments and historical and cultural relics; urges all States to deny all forms of support for terrorist groups, including financial support, and to deny safe haven to those who incite, plan, finance, support or commit terrorist acts; and condemns incitement to violence and terrorism by any means, in particular through the media, and highlights in that regard the complex challenges associated with the increasing use of social media and information and communications technology in inciting violence and terrorism. The Council decides to convene, at its twenty-ninth session, a panel discussion on the effects of terrorism on the enjoyment by all persons of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and requests the High Commissioner to liaise with States and all stakeholders with a view to ensuring their participation in the panel discussion.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (25): Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, El Salvador, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Maldives, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.
Against (16): Albania, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Mexico, Montenegro, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Korea, South Africa, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, and United States of America.
Abstentions (6): Botswana, Gabon, Ghana, Kazakhstan, Namibia, and Qatar.
Before the vote, the Human Rights Council decided, by a vote of 14 in favour, 23 against and 10 abstentions, to reject a motion by Mexico to adjourn the consideration of this draft resolution.
Egypt, introducing resolution L.30, noted that in Africa, Asia and Europe, terrorism had had devastating consequences for the enjoyment of human rights. It had destabilized Governments, threatened peace, and impeded economic, social and cultural rights. The Human Rights Council should issue a clear stance on the issue. The resolution affirmed that countering terrorism was complementary with the protection of human rights. It reaffirmed the obligation of States to protect all their citizens, and to strengthen laws to counter terrorism and prevent incitement to terrorism. It also underlined the importance of education and awareness raising about terrorism, and the necessity of international cooperation in the fight against terrorism. Informal consultations were held with all delegations over the past weeks. It was regretted that a few delegations chose not to engage in them. It was noted that the resolution clearly indicated the need to uphold international human rights standards and international law.
Jordan, also introducing draft resolution L.30 on the effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights, said the resolution condemned strongly the scourge of terrorism that was destructing societies. It expressed solidarity for the victims of terrorism. It was the duty of the international community to prevent and combat terrorism, and to punish all those who perpetrated it. Success in the generational fight required strong resources. Jordan urged the international community to unite to combat terrorism, including in areas of the protection of security and the exchange of information, as well as addressing the underlying causes. Acts, methods and practices of terrorism were aimed at the destruction of human rights and fundamental freedoms. This was why the Human Rights Council had to address this issue. Jordan asked the Council to adopt the resolution by consensus.
Mexico, speaking in a general comment, stated that the oral amendment that was tabled by Egypt did not correspond to the spirit and letter of the rules of procedure, which considered a minimum period of 24 hours before the discussion or vote on any amendment. The Mexican delegation requested that the debate on the proposal be suspended until the minimum 24 hours.
Morocco, speaking in a general comment, said that they wished to be included in the list of delegations introducing the resolution, and that they had contacted the Secretariat to that end.
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the United States said they were in favour of the motion proposed by Mexico to adjourn for 24 hours.
Saudi Arabia and Cuba said they opposed the postponement of the debate proposed by Mexico. This was a small oral amendment.
Morocco, speaking in a general comment, said that terrorism was a global threat and a global challenge to States and international institutions, on which the Council had to take a position. The fight against terrorism and human rights must go hand in hand, said Morocco and stressed that there were lessons learned and best practices in combatting terrorism that should be shared. The Rabat Plan of Action contained useful guidance to States to counter the danger of hate speech. The fight against terrorism required concerted efforts at the international, regional and national levels and all States should vote in favour of this draft text.
Venezuela, speaking a general comment, welcomed the submission of the draft text and said it was most timely to deal with this subject because of unprecedented violence in the world which affected hundreds of thousands of persons. The recent escalation in the acts of violent extremism had demonstrated the need for this resolution.
Algeria, speaking in a general comment, warned that terrorism had taken such a scale that it endangered the security of States and the enjoyment of human rights. Terrorism in all its forms was considered an absolute violation of human rights. However, States’ security needs should not violate fundamental freedoms. Algeria was involved in all initiatives to fight terrorism, and to investigate financial support for terrorist groups. It called on the Council to adopt the resolution.
Saudi Arabia, speaking in a general comment, noted that it was a partner in the fight against terrorism, which had to be tackled with all due strength. The fight against terrorism was a global responsibility because it endangered the right to life. Saudi Arabia had been calling for the establishment of an international centre for the combat against terrorism for years. The resolution highlighted the need to combat terrorism through international cooperation and the need to prevent the financing of terrorist groups, which was why Saudi Arabia called for the adoption of the resolution.
United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it was disappointed that the resolution had come up for a vote before consensus had been reached on how to address terrorism while protecting human rights. The issue was very important, however, the draft resolution was not the best way to advance the dialogue, and contained certain problematic references. It was essential that careful deliberations were made. Victims of terrorism deserved no less, and a divided Council on this issue was not desirable. The sponsors of this text had sought to introduce a different perspective on the talks on terrorism. These problems could have been overcome had there been more debate. The United States called on the Council to vote no on the resolution
Latvia, speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union unequivocally condemned all acts of terrorism, which remained its top priority. Efforts to combat terrorism had to be carried out with respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. This idea was best reflected in a series of resolutions presented by Mexico a year before. Terrorists were criminals and had to be treated as such. The European Union saw the proposal as contradictory to the resolution submitted by Mexico. Draft Resolution L.30 failed to adequately address the suffering by victims of terrorism and their families. It regretted that agreement had not been reached during the consultations. For these reasons the European Union could not accept this resolution and would vote against it.
South Africa, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, agreed that terrorism had an adverse impact on the enjoyment on human rights, even though terrorism had yet to be defined in international law. The increase of terrorism in Africa was of concern. Legitimate struggles by liberation movements for freedom, statehood and dignity could not be equated with terrorism and this unfortunately had not been included in the text of the draft resolution. The text also did not make any reference to the deterioration of the human rights situation as a result of the war on terror. The Council had yet to act on the recommendations contained in the reports by Special Procedures on this topic, and this inaction contributed to impunity. For those reasons, South Africa would vote against the draft resolution.
Mexico, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reiterated that Mexico condemned all acts of terrorism and expressed solidarity with the victims of terrorism. The text was not the result of an open and inclusive dialogue. In 2012, Mexico had tabled a proposition to the Council that all measures against terrorism should be in line with international humanitarian law and international refugee law provisions. In fact, the majority of sponsors of the current resolution were also co-sponsors of Mexico’s resolution. Mexico had undertaken a number of initiatives to fight terrorism in the past 13 years, and had worked towards creating a positive spirit within the United Nations to reach a harmonious position on the fight against terrorism. Mexico would vote against resolution L.30.
Russian Federation, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the upsurge of terrorist threats in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere should invoke active participation of States that directly suffered from terrorist acts. However, some countries had decided to introduce their own methods in the fight against terrorism and set themselves from the rest of the international community, by maintaining secret prisons and by the practice of torture. There was no alternative to collective opposition to terrorism and therefore Russian Federation supported the resolution.
Pakistan, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Pakistan would vote in favour of the resolution and expressed full support for the views expressed by South Africa. While countering terrorism it was extremely important to protect human rights. While protecting human rights it was important to talk about terrorist practices such as judicial killings, drones and other practices. These were practices that needed to be addressed in resolutions. While supporting this resolution, it was important to state that these practices needed to be dealt with in resolutions on the subject of terrorism.
For use of the information media; not an official record