ND SOCIA
UNITED NATIO.biS^ k^^ONs ^^^^
ECONOMIC ND SOCIA
Distr. GENEML
UNIES
Xi
E/CN.
4/SR.1522
1 9 March 1 9 7 9 Original:
-ENGLISH.
COMMISSION ON НШЖН EIGHTS T h i r t y - f i f t h session SHT-mEY EECOED OP THE
1522nd.
MEETING
held a t the P a l a i s des Nations, Geneva, on Wednesday, I 4 №rch 1 9 7 9 j a t 8 . 3 0 p.m. Chairman;
Mr. BEâULNE
(Canada)
later:
Mr. HIOS
(Panama)
CONTENTS Question of a convention on the "rights of the c h i l d (continued) Draft d.eclaration on the e l i m i n a t i o n of a l l forms of intolerance and. of. d.iscrimination based on r e l i g i o n or b e l i e f . Eights of persons belonging to n a t i o n a l , ethnic, r e l i g i o u s and. l i n g u i s t i c m i n o r i t i e s Purther promotion and. encouragement of human r i g h t s and fund.amental freedoms, includ.ing ! (a)
Question of the "programme and methods of work of the Commission,» a l t e r n a t i v e approaches, and ways and. means w i t h i n j n e United. Nations system, f o r improving the e f f e c t i v e enjoyment of human r i g h t s and. fund.amental freed.oms
(b)
Importance of national i n s t i t u t i o n s i n the f i e l d of human r i g h t s
Measures to improve the s i t u a t i o n and. ensure the human r i g h t s and. d.ignity of a l l migrant workers Period.ic reports on hman r i g h t s (b)
Period.ic reports on c i v . i l and. p o l i t i c a l r i g h t s
Organization of work
This record, i s subject to c o r r e c t i o n . P a r t i c i p a n t s wishing to make corrections should submit them i n w r i t i n g to the O f f i c i a l Eecords Ed.iting Section, room E . 6 I O 8 , P a l a i s des Nations, Geneva, w i t h i n one week of r e c e i v i n g the record, i n t h e i r working language. Corrections to the records of the meetings of the Commission at t h i s session w i l l be consolidated, i n a s i n g l e corrigend.um to be issued, s h o r t l y a f t e r the end. of the session. GE.79-11651
E/CN.4/SR,1522 pa'ge..2.:
The meetinf; was c a l l e d to order at 8 . 5 0 p.m. QUESTION OP A CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OP THE: CHILD (agenda item 1 3 ) (continued) (E/CN.4/1324 and C o r r . l a n d A d d . l - 4 | E / C N . 4 / L . Í 4 I 8 , L . 1 4 2 3 , L . 1 4 6 5 / R e v . l , L . I 4 6 8 ) 1. Mr.УАЖОНУТ (Observer f o r Hungary) said h i s delegation considered that the • common goal of the i n t e r n a t i o n a l community should, be to ensure that young people, could grow up i n a world a t peace. Young people had the task of c a r r y i n g the world forward, and. i t was therefore the duty of every s o c i e t y to prepare them f o r that task and to grant them t h e i r r i g h t s . Both n a t i o n a l measures, such as the B i l l on the Rights of Youth adopted i n Hungary i n 1 9 7 6 , and i n t e r n a t i o n a l e f f o r t s were required, to ensure that t h e i r r i g h t s were respected.. His Government was organizing an i n t e r n a t i o n a l forum i n June i n connexion with the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Year of the Child,, at which the p a r t i c i p a n t s would; have-an opportunity to review the extent to which the p r i n c i p l e s l a i d down i n the Declaration on the Rights of the Child were being applied,. ' 2. His Government therefore f u l l y supported the pre-paration of a l e g a l l y binding convention on the r i g h t s of the c h i l d , and, whole-heartedly endorsed, d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E/CN,4/L.1465/Rev.l. I t hoped that the work ,of -preparing the convention would be given p r i o r i t y at the t h i r t y - s i x t h session of the Commission. 3. The CHAIRMAN i n v i t e d the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on agenda item 1 3 to introd,uce i t s report ( E / C N . 4 / L . 1 4 6 8 ) . 4 . , № . LOPATKA (Poland), introducing document E / C N . 4 / L . I 4 6 8 , s a i d that the report reflected, the views that had, been expressed i n the general d i s c u s s i o n and the agreements reached, on substance and proced.ure. A number of amendments to the d,raft text.had been suggested, and. incorporated., and, he hoped, that the provisions ad.opted, by the Working Group would, be s a t i s f a c t o r y to everyone. He also ôommend.ed. d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E/CN.4/L.1465/Rev.l to the Commission f o r i t s approval. 5. Ms. SILVA y SILVA (Peru) said that her delegation endorsed d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E/CN.4/L.1465/Rev.l and, would, l i k e to see i t adopted by consensus.
'
6, The CHAIRMAN said that, i f there was no o b j e c t i o n , he would take i t that the Commission wished to adopt d,raft r e s o l u t i o n E/CN.4/L.1465/Rev.l by consensus. 7.
I t was so decided,.
DEAPT DECLARATION ON THE ELIIGNATÏON OP ALL PORFIS OP INTOLERANCE AND OP DISCRIMMTION BASED ON RELIGION OR BELIEF (agenda item 13) ( E / C N . 4 / l l 4 5 5 E / C N . 4 / I I 4 6 and. Add.1-3 5 .... E/CN.4/1305 and A d d . 1 - 2 ; E / C N . 4 / l 3 3 7 5 E / C N . 4 / L . 1 4 1 7 and L . I 4 6 4 Î
E/CN.4/NG0/228;
E / G N . 4 / N G 0 / 2 2 9 ; E / C N . 4 / N G 0 / 2 5 1 ; E/CN.4A^G.4/ÍVP.I)
8, The CHAIRi-ffi.N drew the Commission's a t t e n t i o n to d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n Е/(Ш.4/Ъ.14^4У. and i n v i t e d the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on agenda item 18 to present i t s d r a f t report ( E / C N . 4 A G . 4 / W P . 1 ) .
E/CH.4/SR.1522
page 3
9. Mr.. EBMilCORiV ( A u s t r i a ) , i n t r o d u c i n g document E / C N . 4 / W G . 4 / W . 1 , s a i d that the. Working Group had unfortimately been imahle to reach agreement on a r t i c l e s I to I I I of the d r a f t d e c l a r a t i o n . The main stumbling-block had proved to be the proposed i n c l u s i o n of the words " t h e i s t i c , n o n - t h e i s t i c or a.theistic c o n v i c t i o n s " . i n a r t i c l e I . Another d i f f i c u l t y had been whether or not to pla.ce certain..phrases between brackets. Some representatives had considered that the t e x t submitted t o the Conmission by the Working Group should be based-on a concensus and should not therefore include expressions on which agreement had not been reaxhed... He read out a number of ajnendments and corrections which had been proposed to the t e x t of the d r a f t report and w i t h which he was i n agreement.
1 0 . The GHillH^ilH s a i d that the S e c r e t a r i a t had taken note of the changes concerned, and would incorporate them i n the fina.l v e r s i o n of the Working Group's report. 11. Mgr.• BRESSAH (Observer.for the Holy See) s a i d that h i s delegation was keenly i n t e r e s t e d i n the d r a f t d e c l a r a t i o n and also i n a possible convention on the e l i m i n a t i o n of a l l f o m s of intolerance and of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n based on r e l i g i o n or b e l i e f , since r e l i g i o u s freedom made i t p o s s i b l e f o r people to l i v e i n harmony w i t h one another while developing f u l l y as individ.uals i n a s o c i e t y tha.t was free of f e a r . i t wa.s therefore v/ith some d i s i l l u s i o n that h i s delegation had followed the discussions i n the Working Group during the present session. Despite thé fa.ct that there was every p o s s i b i l i t y of reaching an agreement on the. substance of the d r a f t d e c l a r a t i o n , i n e x p l i c a b l e , d i f f i c u l t i e s were being r a i s e d a f t e r 17 years of d i s c u s s i o n , :while innumerable people i n the v/orld were s u f f e r i n g because of t h e i r _ r e l i g i o n or b e l i e f s . 12,... Although i t ha.d not been p o s s i b l e to complete the d r a f t d e c l a r a t i o n , as requested by the General Assembly i n i t s r e s o l u t i o n ЗЗ/Юб, h i s delegation v/as i n favour, of adopting the t e x t of the f i r s t three a r t i c l e s , as given i n d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E/CH.4/L.I464, despite the f a c t that i t would have p r e f e r r e d greater emphasis to have been l a i d on the question of i n t o l e r a n c e and on the need f o r the p o l i t i c a l , economic, s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l b e l i e f s of the i n d i v i d u a l to be respected. 1 3 . Mr. McKIHHOH (Canada), i n t r o d u c i n g d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E/CN.4/L.I464, said that the Working Group had agreed on the substance of the f i r s t three a r t i c l e s of the d r a f t d e c l a r a t i o n but ha.d unfortunately been unable to achieve a consensus on t h e i r formulation. However, as the whole question had been under d.iscussion i n the United Nations f o r so long, h i s delegation and several others considered that i t was urgently necessary to make some headv/ay. The adoption of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n would .preclude ha,ving to s t a r t a l l over again at the next session of the Cominis'sion. 1 4 . Mr. LEWIN"(Agudas I s r a e l World Organization) s a i d that a d e c l a r a t i o n to eliminate r e l i g i o u s intolerance could do so much good merely by i t s inherent moral power that i t was hard to understand why i t had not y e t come i n t o being, e s p e c i a l l y as i t s exisi;ence would have no l e g a l consequences f o r any na.tion. I t v/ould not, a f t e r a l l , be unique. Many documents proclaiming the p r i n c i p l e of tolerance had preceded i t , i n c l u d i n g the B i b l e , and nothing could be more j u s t i f i a b l e than f o r the v/orld community to uphold the r i g h t of every person .to l i v e i n accordance with h i s b e l i e f s .
E/CN.4/SR.1522
page 4
15. I t was a source of great concern to h i s organization there there was opposition to the d e c l a r a t i o n , s i n c e - i t was inconceivahle that any State could disagree w i t h the. concept that d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on the grounds of r e l i g i o n or b e l i e f was an offence to htmian d i g n i t y . Twenty-three non-governmental organizations had urged, i n document E / C № . 4 / F G 0 / 2 2 8 , that the d r a f t i n g of the d e c l a r a t i o n should not be f u r t h e r delayed. The recent r e l i g i o u s r e v o l u t i o n i n an important country was a reminder that such a d e c l a r a t i o n was timely. He urged the Commission to adopt the f i r s t three a r t i c l e s of the d r a f t d e c l a r a t i o n , i n order to show that i t was f u l f i l l i n g the mandate of the General Assembly i n part at l e a s t . He also appealed to the Commission to place the question on the agendau f o r i t s next session. 1 6 . Mr. MANOLOV (Bulgaria) thanl-ced the Chairman-Rapporteur of the V/orking Group f o r presenting h i s delegation's amendments to the Group's report and expressed the. hope . that those amendments would be r e f l e c t e d i n the Commission's report on the item under consideration. Turning to d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E / C N . 4 / L . I 4 6 4 , he expressed surprise t h a i the Canadian delegation should be proposing the adoption by the Commission of ' . three d r a f t a r t i c l e s which not o n l j had not been adopted by the Vi/orking Group but had not even been formally dra.fted. In h i s view, the Cana,dian proposal c o n s t i t u t e d an act of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n against the p o s i t i o n s of c e r t a i n delegations. Moreover, i t contravened the Connission's r u l e s of procedure, and was therefore i l l e g a l . He would vote against paragraphs 1 , 2 and 5 of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n ' s operative parpt and against the annex, but was not opposed to paragraph 5 . 1 7 . Mr. LOCHTCHININ (Union of Soviet S o c i a l i s t Republics) drew a t t e n t i o n to an e r r o r i n paragraph 3 5 of the Spanish text of the Working Group's report ( E / C N . 4 / ¥ G . 4 / W P . 1 ) which completely d i s t o r t e d the meaning of the text of the USSR proposal r e f e r r e d to. 1 8 . Mr. HEREDIA PEREZ (Cuba) s a i d that h i s delegation, which f o r a number of years had taken an a c t i v e part i n e f f o r t s to d r a f t a d e c l a r a t i o n to which a l l members of the Commission could subscribe, s a i d he agreed i n substance with the a r t i c l e s annexed to d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E / C N . 4 / L . I 4 6 4 . He sympathized with the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n ' s aims but was surprised by the method used, which departed from normal p r a c t i c e . The Working Group, l i k e other working groups of the Conmiission, had always proceeded on the basis of consensus and the submission of reports to the Commission. I f the Canadian delegation wanted that p r a c t i c e to be abandoned, i t should make a proposal . to that e f f e c t . The method of asking the Commission to vote on a t e x t on which the Working Group had not reached a consensus, i f only f o r l a c k of time, was' unacceptable. 1 9 . Mr. MEZVINSKY (United States of America) s a i d that the Canadian proposal to adopt at l e a s t three a r t i c l e s of the d r a f t d e c l a r a t i o n seemed eminently reasonable since, as he understood, there had been agreement on those a r t i c l e s i n the Working Group. The item under consideration had been on the Commission's agenda f o r a long time end f a i l u r e to achieve any s u b s t a n t i a l progress at the present session would be most r e g r e t t a b l e . I f the Commission was unable to take even such l i m i t e d a c t i o n , i t might be best to admit defeat and turn the issue over to the General Assembly. His delegation would support Ihe Canadian d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n .
S/CN,4/SR.1522
page 5 2 0 . I-'ir. O'DQgOVM (observer f o r Ireland), said tha.i, i n addition to the amendments to the v/orking Group's report read out by the Chairman-Rapporteur, h i s delegation .had suggested that paragra,ph 26 of the report should be drafted to read: "Some r e p r e s e n t a n ves emphasized the need t o make progress towards an agreement and they r e c a l l e d General Assembly r e s o l u t i o n ЗЗ/Юб, which reo^uested the Commission to s t r i v e towards completion of the d r a f t declaration a t i t s t h i r t y - f i f t h session." 21. In the l i g h t of General Assembly r e s o l u t i o n ЗЗ/Юб, i t was h i g h l y important that the Commission should report at l e a s t some progress to the General Assembly at i t s t h i r t y - f o u r t h session. For a number of reasons, i n c l u d i n g l a c k of time, the Working Group had f a i l e d to a.dopt the e a r l y a r t i c l e s of the d r a f t d e c l a r a t i o n , but i t was evident that agreement on those a r t i c l e s was close a t hand. The o r i g i n of the three d r a f t a r t i c l e s annexed to d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E/CÍÍ.4/L.I464 was a.s f o l l o w s : a r t i c l e I consisted of paragra„phs 2 , 3 and 4 of the compromise text proposed by the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group and referred to i n paragra.ph 1 2 of the 'Working Group's report. A r t i c l e I I ( l ) was based on paragraph 1 of the Soviet proposal referred to i n paragraph 9 of the report, the word " b e l i e f s " r e p l a c i n g the words " t h e i s t i c , n o n - t h e i s t i c or a t h e i s t i c ' c o n v i c t i o n s " . A r t i c l e I I ( 2 ) v/as based on paragraph 1 of* the Soviet t e x t referred to i n paragraph 2 0 of the report and also on a r t i c l e 1 , paragraph 1 , of the I n t e m a d i o n a l Convention on the' E l i m i n a t i o n of A l l Forms of R a c i a l D i s c r i m i n a t i o n , L a s t l y , a r t i c l e I I I v/as based on a text suggested by France on the. basis of a Netherlands proposal which had received s u b s t a n t i a l support i n the v/orking Group, 2 2 . In expressing support f o r the Canadian d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n , he emphasized that differences i n the Working Group had r e l a t e d .to the framev/ork of the d r a f t a r t i c l e s , the p l a c i n g of p a r t i c u l a r paragraphs, q_uestions of emphasis and c e r t a i n proposals . remaining from previous years' discussions, but not to the three d r a f t a r t i c l e s whose adoption Canada, v/as proposing. 2 3 . i-Ir. CHARRY SAî'IFER (Colombia) endorsed the previous speaker's remarks and said that he not only supported the Canadian d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n but v/ished to become i t s co-sponsor. 2 4 . Mr. GNONLONb'OUN (Benin) said that h i s country, v/here some 3 0 r e l i g i o n s coexisted i n peace, had n o , d i f f i c u l t y i n endorsing the p r i n c i p l e of r e l i g i o u s tolerance. Eds d i f f i c u l t y v/as v/ith the reference i n the Canadian proposal to far-reaching agreement i n the Working Group. His impression, supported by the report of the Working Group's Chairman-Rapporteur, was that no consensus had been reached, 2 5 . I'd-. CA'LERO-RODRIGHES ( B r a z i l ) said that, much as he sympathized vdth the Canadian d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n , he doubted, v/hether adopting the proposed.short cut to general agreement v/ould improve the s i t u a t i o n . The only way to make progress was to persevere i n t r y i n g to achieve a. consensus v/ithin the Viorking Group. H i s delegation v/ould therefore abstain from v o t i n g on the Canadian proposal. 2 6 . ï'ir. SOYER (France) said t h a t , a f t e r I 7 years of e f f o r t , i t v/as time to show some r e s u l t s , at l e a s t i n the form of three d r a f t a r t i c l e s . • He believed that consensus on those a r t i c l e s was.v/ithin.reach and appealed to a l l delegations to support the Canadian proposal.
E/CN.4/Sfi.1522 page б 27. l i r . LOCHTCHININ (union of Soviet S o c i a l i s t fiepublics) remarked that the frequent references to Soviet proposals i n the V/orking Group's report were proof of the Soviet delegation's s p i r i t of co-operation and desire to reach consensus. Some progress had been made and s t i l l more could have been achieved had the V/orking Group had more time at i t s d i s p o s a l ; the report c l e a r l y showed that a measure of agreement already existed and that only a, fev; steps more were needed to reach the goal. Nevertheless, h i s delegation considered that adoption of d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E/CN.4/L.1464 would c o n s t i t u t e a h i g h l y dangerous precedent. He f a i l e d to see the grounds f o r the statement i n paragraph 1 that the V/orking Group had been unable to reach consensus on the question of submission of d r a f t a r t i c l e s to the Commission f o r adoption. So f a r as he v/as av/are, the V/orking Group had never discussed that question. He a l s o f a i l e d to see the point of the proposal contained i n paragraph 5 f o r the re-establishment of the V/orking Group at the Commission's t h i r t y - s i x t h session i f the V;orking Group v/as to be by-passed i n the manner proposed by Canada. He appealed to the Canadian delegation to reconsider i t s proposal i n viev/ of i t s dangerous consequences, not only f o r the V/orking Group on r e l i g i o u s intolerance but also f o r other vTOrking groups of the Commission v/hich operated on the consensus p r i n c i p l e . The Canadian proposal was unjust and d i s c r i m i n a t o r y , and the Commission v/ould be making a serious mistake by adopting i t . 28. lir. SOYER (Prance) said he considered that a concerted e f f o r t by the Commission covild lead to a successful outcome. Indeed, the Soviet representative had staled that a measure of agreement existed and had gone on to say that only a fev/ issues remained to be resolved. Since there v/ere no major d i f f i c u l t i e s , i t v/ould be unfortunate i f the Commission concluded i t s session v/ithout d e f i n i n g the area of a^greement. The area of disagreement v/as c l e a r l y centred on d r a f t a r t i c l e I I I i n the annex to the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n proposed by Canada. The Soviet Union had proposed the follov/ing texts "Discrimination and intolerance on the grovmds of r e l i g i o n or b e l i e f are fundamentally unjust and c o n s t i t u t e an offence to human d i g n i t y " and h i s delegalion d i d not believe that there could be disagreement on such an obvious t r u t h . There was near unanimity among other delegations to add a statement to the e f f e c t that d i s c r i m i n a t i o n constituted a v i o l a t i o n of the human r i g h t s and fundamental freedoms proclaimed i n the Charter, the Universal Declaration and i n the i n t e r n a t i o n a l covenants r e l a t i n g to human r i g h t s . H i s delegation could not believe that the Soviet delegation vzas shocked by the reference to fundamental instruments, p a r t i c u l a r l y since the Soviet Union had o f f i c i a l l y stated that i t s C o n s t i t u t i o n enshrined provisions r e f l e c t i n g those of the Charter, the Universal Declaration and the i n t e r n a t i o n a l covenants. His delegation did not understand the Soviet delegation's objections and would l i k e an explanation of why i t was opposed to references to i n t e r n a t i o n a l instruments that v/ere accepted i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y by the Soviet Union, 29. № . LOCHTCHININ (Union of Soviet S o c i a l i s t Republics) said that h i s delegation's very important question regarding paragraph 1 of the d r a f t ' r e s o l u t i o n had not been artsv/ered. His delegation therefore assvuned that the Canadian delegation v/ould be prepared to delete i t . I t v/ished to propose the follov/ing minor amendment to paragraph 2 of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n ; "Recommends to the V/orking Group f o r i t s prompt consideration and adoption at i t s next session the d r a f t a r t i c l e s contained i n the annex to the present r e s o l u t i o n s " . The purpose of that amendment v/as to prevent the v/ork of the Group from being undermined; h i s delegation believed that i t should be possible to a r r i v e at a consensus on those a r t i c l e s i n the course of the next session, thus achieving considerable progress.
L/CN.4/SH.1322 page 7 30. í-lr.МсКДШОН (Canada) i n r u i r c d wlietlier the Soviet aüaendment to paragraph 2ол the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n aëant that when the l/orking Group resumed i t s irork, i t woild adopt the three a r t i c l e s contaánod i n tlie annex to th.e d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n or resume i t s study -of those a r t i c l e s . He could agree to the Soviet delegation's amendment i f i t s purpose wa.s t o ovsrcofflo the procedural problem t o which i¿ had a l l u d e d , i n tha.t a precedent would be created by adopting a.rticlss which had merely been studied and discussed i n the Working Group. He coald also accept tho Soviet amendment i f i t meant that the Working Group v/ould not resume i t s study of the throe article,-? but v/ould continue i t s v/ork on tho d r a f t dacla,raution a.s a v.rhole. However, lie could not accept the 3.mendjriient i f i t s purpose v/a.s to re-open the debate on those - three a . r t i c l e 3 . 31 • i l r . I'EZVIl'JSIQ'" (United States of America) said that h i s delegation considered the ajiiendment submitted by the Soviet del9ga.tion to be a, delaying device' and that i t v/ished the dra.ft resolution, to be pvit to the vote. 32. Ilr. RIGS (panaj'.ia.) said t h a t , unless the Commission took some a.ction on the ma.tter,'It'-would finci i t s e l f i n exactly the same s i t u a t i o n i n one yea.r'з tii'I'IS.33» Mr. CH/iPiRY SijJlP.JE (Colombia) said that since the Canadian delegation l i a d not accepted the amendment submitted by the Soviet Union, he wished t o request that the vote should be taken by r o l l - c a . l l . 34• I-ir. .GRI-x/lCOM (Austria) i n q u i r e d vfhether, i n the event that the Canadian d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n v/as a,dopted, delegations v.roulbe e n t i t l e d to паке nev/ d r a f t i n g proposals on the three a r t i c l e s concerned at the Corúmission's next session. 35' Mr. V3.n BOVSH ( D i r e c t o r , D i v i s i o n of I-ium.an Eights) said that he could not ansv.rer that question. The Corarlssion i t s e l f v/ould have to take a. d e c i s i o n on. the matter a.t i t s t h i r t y - s i x t h session. 36. Mr. LQCHTCHIHIH (Union of Soviet S o c i a l i s t R e p u b l i c s ) , spealcing on a point of ordor, said lie though'b that some combers of the Coimaission had not f u l l y understood h i s delegation's i n t e n t i o n , namely that the d r a f t article,ii should be considered and adopted at the Co-".imlssion's next session. 37 • A v o t e v/as talcen by r o l l - c a . l l on the amendment proposed by bho Soviot Union to paragraph 2 of "draft r e s o l u t i o n II/CH.4/L.I464. 33.
39.
A u s t r i a , ha.ving been drav/n by l o t by Ы10 Chairman, v a s c a l l e d upon t o vote f i r s t . In favour;
Bulga.ria., Cube., Ira.q, Poland, Syi-ia-n Arau) Ее p u b l i c , Union of So'i/iet S o c i a l i s t Eepublics.
Aga.inst i
Australia., A u s t r i a , Ca.nada, Colombia., France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Panai.m, Peru, Portuga.l, Sv.'eden, United States of America., Uruguay.
Abstaining;
Benin, B r a z i l , Burundi, Cyprus, U-gypt, I n d i a , .Iran, Ivory Coa.st, Morocco, Nigeria., Paki3ta,n, Senegal, Uganda, Yugosla'via..
The Soviet amendraent v/as r e j e c t e d by 12 votes to 6, v/ith I4 abstentions.
E/CN.4/SR.1522
page 8
40.
A vote was talcen by i - o l l - c a l l on d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E/CN.4/L.I464.-
41-
Poland, having been dratm Ъу l o t by the Chairiiian, was c a l l e d upon to vote f i r s t . In favour;
Australia., A u s t r i a , Canada., Colombia, Cyprus, Egypt, Pra.nce, G-erma,ny, Federal Piepublic of, India., Ivory Coast, N i g e r i a , Pakistan, Panama, Peru, P o r t u g a l , Senegal, Sweden, United States of America, ürug-ua.y.
Aga.inst ;
None
Abstaining;
Benin, B r a z i l , B u l g a r i a , Burundi, Cuba., Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Poland, Syrian Ara.b Piepublic, Uga.nda, Union 01 Soviot S o c i a l i s t Eepublics, Yugoslavia.
42. Dra.ft r e s o l u t i o n E/CN.4/L.I464 v^as adopted by 19 votes to none, with 15 abstentions. 43 • Mrs. . SIBAL (India) s a i d tha.t she hoped that her delegation's vote i n favour of the draft r e s o l u t i o n would not be taken to заеап that India, a.pproved the procedure adopted. 44» Mr. HEREDIii P.dR7JZ (Cuba.,) said t h a i h i s delegation ha.d a.bstained i n the vote beca.use i t could not accept a. mothod of v.rork which was t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a i normally followed i n tho Coi¡mission. 45»
Mr. Eios (Pana.ma) took the Chair.
4 6 . Mr. EL-FATTAL (Syria.n Arab Republic) said that h i s delegation had a.bstained i n the vote beca;ase i t considered th.at the three dra.ft a.rticles should ha.ve been a.doptad. i n the Working Group before being submittod to the Coniinssion f o r appi'oval. H i s delegalion's vote should not bo construed a.s r e f l e c t i n g i t s f i n a l p o s i t i o n on those articles. 4 7 . te. LOCHTCIIININ (Union of Soviet S o c i a l i s t Republics) s a i d that h i s delegation ha.d abstained i n the vote because the Conmiission ha.d been put in. the. p c s i t i o n . of having to a.dopt a.rtÍGles of a dra.ft d e c l a r a t i o n without having f i r s t , discussed., them. He hoped t h a i the proced.ure follov/ed would not c o n s t i t u t e a. precedent f o r the work of the Coiiii?lssion's woricing groups. . , RIGHTS OF P.ERSOHS BELONGING TO NATIONAL, ETHtilC, líELIGIOUS ilíD LINGUISTIC MINORITIES (agenda item 23) ( s / C N , 4 / l 2 9 8 a,nd Add.l; Е / С Н . 4 Д . I 4 6 7 ; Е/СН.4/1:ЮО/231) 48.
lîr. TO.SEVSICI (Yugoslavia), speaking i n M e capacity as Chairman-Rapport.eu.r of the Working Group on the r i g h t s of persons belonging to na.tional, e t h n i c , religio-as and l i n g u i s t i c n l n o r i t i e s , s a i d that shortage of time ha.d prevented the Working Group from a,dopting the report contained i n d.ocument E / C N , 4 / L . 1 4 6 7 . He x^roposed, therefore, that the Commission shouldi a.dopt, without a vote, the report a.nd the di"aft r e s o l u t i o n contained, i n pa..ra.gra.ph 27 thereof. Since the Working Giroup had cosipleted i t s work, he had received tvro anend.m.ents to the report. The f i r s t , from the Norv/egian delegation, vrould replace pa.ragrc^ph 8 of the report by the .follov.lng text-s "8. The répresentativre of N .m.a.y drev; a t t e n t i o n to the differences i n d e f i n i t i o n of indigenous peoples and persons belonging to n a t i o n a l , e t h n i c , r e l i g i o u s and l i n g u i s t i c m i n o r i t i e s . His CTOvernmont had proposed amendments to the d.ra.ft
E/C1T.4/SR.1522
page 9
d e c l a r a t i o n so as t o make t h i s d i f f e r e n c e appear c l e a r l y i n each a r t i c l e , hux one might also consider adding a sepa,rate a r t i c l e to t h i s e f f e c t . I n a longer .perspective, a sepa.rate i n t e r n a t i o n a l instrument ought to be elabora.ted on. the r i g h t s .of indigenous peoples." Under the second amendm.ent, from the Gresk delegation, the words "taking i n t o a.,ccount a d l relevant documents" would be ad.ded at the end of operative paragraph 2 o f the draft r e s o l u t i o n . 4 9 . The CHAIBITOI suggested that the Commission should a,d_opt, by consensus, the draft report contained i n document р]/си.4/Ь.14б7, as am.en.ded, a;nd the draft r e s o l u t i o n contained i n paragraph 27 of that r e p o r t , as amended. 50.
I t wa.s so d-ecid,ed.
51.
Mr. Beaulne (Ca.nada) resumed the Chair,
FURTHER PROMOTION AND MCOURAGEI'IENT OF 1ШШ INCLUDING î
RIGHTS AND FUKDilffiNTAL FREEDOMS,
»
(a) QUESTION OF THE PROGRAMÍE ilND Î'IETHODS OF V/ORK OF THE COMt'IISSION; А Е Т Е Ш Ш Ш Е APPROACHES AND WAYS i\ND№ANS WITHER TEE UNIT^ NATIONS SYSTEM FOR IMPROVBIG THE EPIECTIVE ENJOIÎ-isNT O P ШЛ'ШТ RIGHTS Ж В P U N D Í Í Í S N T A L FREEDOMS (b)
E'IPORTANCE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE FIELD OF ШШ
RIGHTS (agenda item 1 1 )
(E/CN.4/1312 and Add.1-2; E/CN.4/1318 and Aáá.1-3} E / C N . 4 / 1 3 1 9 ; E / C N . 4 / 1 3 2 O 5 E/CN.4/1321 and Add.1-6; E / C N . 4 / 1 3 2 2 ; E / C N . 4 / L . 1 4 5 9 , L . I 4 6 2 and L.1482; E/CN.4/NGO/246; E / C N . 4 / N G O / 2 4 7 ; E/CN.4/NGO/249; S / C N . 4 / N G O / 2 5 4 P E/CN.4/NGO/2575 ST/HR/S.ER.A
52.
and Add.l)
The CHAIRI'LâN i n v i t e d the CoBmiissio.n to taJce up itemi 1 1 of i t s agend.a.
5 3 . Mr.№ZVIHSKY (United States o f America) said that the Coiamission had already s t a r t e d i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a„genda. item 1 0 . I t would seem, proper, t h e r e f o r e , to complete that item before t a k i n g up a.genda, item 1 1 . • 5 4 . The СНА1ЕМ/Ш said that the consultations on the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n s r e l a t i n g to agenda item 10 had not yet been concluded. 5 5 ' Mr.. EL-FATTAL (Syrian Ara.b Republic) proposed that the Chairman's suggestion that the Commission should taJœ u-p item. 1 1 of i t s agenda, should be put to the vote. 56.
The Chairman's suggestion was adopted by I 3 votes to 4? with 7 alstentions.'
5 7 ' Mr. DIEYE (Senegal) introduced the report of the V/orking Group on the questions of f u r t h e r promotion and encoura.gement of hum.an i t g h t s and fundamental freedoms, and of a l t e r n a t i v e approaches and wa.ys end m.eans f o r approving the -effective enjoyment of huEe.n r i g h t s (E/CN.4/L.1482) . He hoped that the Comimission vrould be able to adopt the report and the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n contained i n paragraph 24 thereof vrithout a vote.
E/CT.4/SR.1522
page
10
5 8 . lir. Ш''1В ( A u s t r a l i a ) said that h i s delegation had taken part i n the Working Group's consultations. Further consultations had been held subsequent to the pi-oduction of document E / C N . 4 / L . 1 4 8 2 , as a r e s u l t of which he wished to suggest that the text of opera.tive paragraph I3 of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n contained i n pa,ragro.ph 24 of that document should be amended to read: " I 5 . Ifotes General Assemb r e s o l u t i o n 3 3 / 1 0 5 which requested the Commission to talce i n t o account, i n continuing i t s v/ork on the o v e r - a l l anadysis, the viev/s e3cpressed on the various proposals, i n c l u d i n g a post of United Ifetions High Commissioner f o r Human Rights and'that the Commission could n o t reach an agreement on the l a t t e r i " . He h o p e d - t h a i , with that amendment, the report and the dra,ft r e s o l u t i o n could be -adopted v/ithout a vote. 5 9 . Mr. 1-ЕЭТ1НЗКТ (United States of America) said that i t v/as h i s delegation's understanding that the v/ords " i n t h i s co-nnexion" should be deleted from op-erative paragraph 2 of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n . 6 0 . The CHAIRI-il^T said that i f there v/as no o b j e c t i o n , he would take i t that the Commission víished to adopt, without a vote, the report contained i n document E / C H . 4 / L . 1 4 8 2 , v/ith the amendment to operative paragraph 2 of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n r e f e r r e d to b y the representative of the United States and the amendment to operative paro,graph I 3 of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n suggested by the representative of Australia,. 61.
I t vjas so decided.
62. Ifc. 0RTI2i (Cuba) asked v/hether, a,s a r e s u l t of the rmendment to eperativo' paragraph I3 of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n , the Commission would be unable to discuss the matters r e f e r r e d to i n tha,t para.graph i n the f u t u r e .
6 3 . Mr. lu'lIB ( A u s t r a l i a ) , supported by Mr. EL-FATTAL (Syrian' .'rab-Republic) ; appe ale to the representative of Cuba not to press h i s point. As amended,, the para,gra,ph v/ñ,s nothing more than -a statement of f a c t tha,t t h e question had b e e n discussed bvrt. that agreement ha.d not. been reached. 6 4 . The CI1VIR]^'UH'T satd that, i f there v/as no o b j e c t i o n , he v/ould take i t that the Commission v/ishod to adopt, without a vote, the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n on agenda item 11(a) contained In document E/CIT.4/L.I459. 65'
I t v a s so decided.
'
66. The CKiIRJ-'LIH said that i f there was no o b j e c t i o n , .he v/ould take i t that the Commissiorr'"wished:'to •'albpty-v/ithout a-vote, the-draft resolution.on agenda item'11(b) contained i n docum.ent E / C H . 4 / L . I 4 6 2 . 67.
I t wa,g so decided.
6 8 . Ш. ШВШЪ (Federal Republic of Germany) said that h i s delegation supported " d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E / C N . 4 / L . 1 4 6 2 , but wished to make a number of comments. In the Federal Republic of Germany, n a t i o n a l machinery f o r the promotion and p r o t e c t i o n of human r i g h t s which v/ent f a r beyond the g u i d e l i n e s had been Gsto,blished. That ma,chinery consisted mainly of an independent j u d i c i a r y extending up to the Pedera,l Constitution.a,l Court, to which individup,ls could appeal against
E/CH.4/SR.1522 page 11 v i o l a t i o n s of. t h e i r huinan r i g h t s . H i s delegation considered that the word "s.uch" i n operative paragraphs 2 and 3 of the r e s o l u t i o n covered those i n s t i t u t i o n s as w e l l . The high-ranking human r i g h t s o f f i c e r of the Federal M i n i s t r y of J u s t i c e , who had p a r t i c i p a t e d . i n the Seminar r e f e r r e d to i n the f i r s t and second preambular"paragraphs, had submitted a paper on the system o f the Federal Republic o f Germany. H i s delegation hoped that the information he had supplied would be taken i n t o account by the S e c r e t a r i a t under paragraph 5 o f the r e s o l u t i o n , MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE SITUATIOH AHD ENSURE THE ЬГО1-ЖН RIGHTS Al© DIGNITY OF ALL MŒÎANT UORiaSRS (agenda item 14) (E/CH.4/1316; S/CN.4/1325| Е/СН.4/ПОО/234; E/CN.4/HGO/245) 69. Ms. BOCBTA (Observer f o r Spain) introduced the report o f the Working Group on measures to improve the s i t u a t i o n and ensure the huma,n r i g h t s and d i g n i t y of a l l migrant workers (s/CN.4/l3l6). A f t e r long n e g o t i a t i o n s , the Working Group had approved the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n contarned. i n paragraph 9 oí the report. The three questions to which the Working Group considered that p r i o r i t y should be given vrere l i s t e d i n operative paragraph 7(b) of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n , 70, Since i t had not been p o s s i b l e , a.t the current session, to. discuss the matter i n s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l , she vrished to propose, on behalf.of her ovm delegation and the delegations of P o r t u g a l , Colombia, Turkey and Yugoslavia, that consideration should, be given to the establishment of a nev/ vrorking group on migrant vrorkers - the terms of reference of vrhich vrould. be e s t a b l i s h e d by the Economic and S o c i a l C o u n c i l at i t s next session - to continue the vrork ali>eady begun by the e x i s t i n g Working Group, and. that the item on migrant v/orkers should be retained on the agenda f o r the Commission's next session. 71« The CHAIRMAN said that, i f there vras no o b j e c t i o n , he vrould. take i t that the Commission vrished to adopt, v/ithout a vote, the report and d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n contained,
i n docxmient E/CN.4/1316. • 72.
I t v/as so decided.
75. Ms. REYES-RETAHA (Observer f o r Mexico) said that despite, the v/ork done by the • United Nations and other interna.tional organizations, p a r t i c u l a r l y ILO, much remained to be done to improve the s i t u a t i o n o f migrant v/orkers. The fvmàamental r i g h t s of such vrorkers vrere sometimes v i o l a t e d and they vrere victims of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . I t was f o r that reason that the Mexican Secretary of State f o r Foreign A f f a i r s had' STOggested, at the t h i r t y - t h i r d session o f the General Assembly, that a code s e t t i n g f o r t h the r i g h t s o f such vrorkers should be dravm up. Mexico had co-sponsored General Assembly r e s o l u t i o n 33/1б35 requesting the Secretary-General to examine, v/ith Member States and s p e c i a l i z e d agencies, the p o s s i b i l i t y of preparing an i n t e r n a t i o n a l agreement on the r i g h t s o f migrant v/orkers. I n the Working Group e s t a b l i s h e d under r e s o l u t i o n 1978/22 of the Economic and. S o c i a l C o u n c i l , her delegation had, been one of those vrhich had recommended, that the Commission, i n considering the s i t u a t i o n of migrant v/orkers, should, explore the p o s s i b i l i t y of preparing a convention on t h e i r r i g h t s , i n order to co-operate v/ith the Secretary-General of the United Nations i n the vrork entrusted to him by the General Assembly i n paragraph 7 of r e s o l u t i o n 33/163.
Ë/CN.4/SR.1522
page 12 PERIODIC REPORTS ON HUIIâN RIGHTS (agenda item 19) s (b)
PERIODIC PvEPORTS OH CIVIL А1П) POLITICAL'RIGHTS (E/CN.4/1304;
E/CN.4/L.
1444)
74. fe. HOYT (United States ox America), Chairman/Rapporteur of the Ad Hoc Committee on P e r i o d i c Reports, suggested that the Commission should adopt, without a vote, r e s o l u t i o n I I (Yearbook on Himian Rights) contained i n document E/CN.4/1304= 75« № . SANON (Deputy D i r e c t o r , D i v i s i o n of Huimn Rights) said that the f i n a n c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of the decisions contained i n the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n were set f o r t h i n document E/CN.4/L.1444» 76. The CHAIRMN s a i d that, i f there wa.s no o b j e c t i o n , he would take i t that the Commission wished to adopt, without a vote, d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n I I contained i n document E/CN.4/1304. 77-
I t was so decided.
78. Mr. DYICOV (Union of Soviet S o c i a l i s t Republics) said that h i s delegation attached great importance to a l l documents on human r i g h t s . He therefore considered that the document i n d i c a t i n g the status of m u l t i l a t e r a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l instruments i n the f i e l d of human r i g h t s concluded under the auspices of the United Nations should be maintained and that operative paragraph 4 of d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n I contained i n document E/CN.4/1304 should be deleted. 79» With regard to r e s o l u t i o n I I contained i n document E/CN.4/1304J he s a i d that funds from obsolete programmes shotxld be used to finance the p u b l i c a t i o n o f the Yearbook. ORCJkNIZATION OP WORIC 80. I'Ir. McKINNON (Canada), r e p l y i n g to a question put by Mr. ERMCORA ( A u s t r i a ) , said that the consultations on the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n s r e l a t i n g to-agenda-item 10 had not produced any r e s u l t s . 81. The CHAIRMAN said that, i f there was no o b j e c t i o n , he would take i t that the Commission decided to defer, u n t i l i t s t h i r t y - s i x t h session, completion of agenda items 10 and I9 and consideration of agenda items I 5 , 17, 25 and 26. 82.
I t was so decided. The meeting rose at 11.43 P-m.
ECONOMIC ND SOCIA
Distr. GENEML
UNIES
Xi
E/CN.
4/SR.1522
1 9 March 1 9 7 9 Original:
-ENGLISH.
COMMISSION ON НШЖН EIGHTS T h i r t y - f i f t h session SHT-mEY EECOED OP THE
1522nd.
MEETING
held a t the P a l a i s des Nations, Geneva, on Wednesday, I 4 №rch 1 9 7 9 j a t 8 . 3 0 p.m. Chairman;
Mr. BEâULNE
(Canada)
later:
Mr. HIOS
(Panama)
CONTENTS Question of a convention on the "rights of the c h i l d (continued) Draft d.eclaration on the e l i m i n a t i o n of a l l forms of intolerance and. of. d.iscrimination based on r e l i g i o n or b e l i e f . Eights of persons belonging to n a t i o n a l , ethnic, r e l i g i o u s and. l i n g u i s t i c m i n o r i t i e s Purther promotion and. encouragement of human r i g h t s and fund.amental freedoms, includ.ing ! (a)
Question of the "programme and methods of work of the Commission,» a l t e r n a t i v e approaches, and ways and. means w i t h i n j n e United. Nations system, f o r improving the e f f e c t i v e enjoyment of human r i g h t s and. fund.amental freed.oms
(b)
Importance of national i n s t i t u t i o n s i n the f i e l d of human r i g h t s
Measures to improve the s i t u a t i o n and. ensure the human r i g h t s and. d.ignity of a l l migrant workers Period.ic reports on hman r i g h t s (b)
Period.ic reports on c i v . i l and. p o l i t i c a l r i g h t s
Organization of work
This record, i s subject to c o r r e c t i o n . P a r t i c i p a n t s wishing to make corrections should submit them i n w r i t i n g to the O f f i c i a l Eecords Ed.iting Section, room E . 6 I O 8 , P a l a i s des Nations, Geneva, w i t h i n one week of r e c e i v i n g the record, i n t h e i r working language. Corrections to the records of the meetings of the Commission at t h i s session w i l l be consolidated, i n a s i n g l e corrigend.um to be issued, s h o r t l y a f t e r the end. of the session. GE.79-11651
E/CN.4/SR,1522 pa'ge..2.:
The meetinf; was c a l l e d to order at 8 . 5 0 p.m. QUESTION OP A CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OP THE: CHILD (agenda item 1 3 ) (continued) (E/CN.4/1324 and C o r r . l a n d A d d . l - 4 | E / C N . 4 / L . Í 4 I 8 , L . 1 4 2 3 , L . 1 4 6 5 / R e v . l , L . I 4 6 8 ) 1. Mr.УАЖОНУТ (Observer f o r Hungary) said h i s delegation considered that the • common goal of the i n t e r n a t i o n a l community should, be to ensure that young people, could grow up i n a world a t peace. Young people had the task of c a r r y i n g the world forward, and. i t was therefore the duty of every s o c i e t y to prepare them f o r that task and to grant them t h e i r r i g h t s . Both n a t i o n a l measures, such as the B i l l on the Rights of Youth adopted i n Hungary i n 1 9 7 6 , and i n t e r n a t i o n a l e f f o r t s were required, to ensure that t h e i r r i g h t s were respected.. His Government was organizing an i n t e r n a t i o n a l forum i n June i n connexion with the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Year of the Child,, at which the p a r t i c i p a n t s would; have-an opportunity to review the extent to which the p r i n c i p l e s l a i d down i n the Declaration on the Rights of the Child were being applied,. ' 2. His Government therefore f u l l y supported the pre-paration of a l e g a l l y binding convention on the r i g h t s of the c h i l d , and, whole-heartedly endorsed, d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E/CN,4/L.1465/Rev.l. I t hoped that the work ,of -preparing the convention would be given p r i o r i t y at the t h i r t y - s i x t h session of the Commission. 3. The CHAIRMAN i n v i t e d the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on agenda item 1 3 to introd,uce i t s report ( E / C N . 4 / L . 1 4 6 8 ) . 4 . , № . LOPATKA (Poland), introducing document E / C N . 4 / L . I 4 6 8 , s a i d that the report reflected, the views that had, been expressed i n the general d i s c u s s i o n and the agreements reached, on substance and proced.ure. A number of amendments to the d,raft text.had been suggested, and. incorporated., and, he hoped, that the provisions ad.opted, by the Working Group would, be s a t i s f a c t o r y to everyone. He also ôommend.ed. d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E/CN.4/L.1465/Rev.l to the Commission f o r i t s approval. 5. Ms. SILVA y SILVA (Peru) said that her delegation endorsed d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E/CN.4/L.1465/Rev.l and, would, l i k e to see i t adopted by consensus.
'
6, The CHAIRMAN said that, i f there was no o b j e c t i o n , he would take i t that the Commission wished to adopt d,raft r e s o l u t i o n E/CN.4/L.1465/Rev.l by consensus. 7.
I t was so decided,.
DEAPT DECLARATION ON THE ELIIGNATÏON OP ALL PORFIS OP INTOLERANCE AND OP DISCRIMMTION BASED ON RELIGION OR BELIEF (agenda item 13) ( E / C N . 4 / l l 4 5 5 E / C N . 4 / I I 4 6 and. Add.1-3 5 .... E/CN.4/1305 and A d d . 1 - 2 ; E / C N . 4 / l 3 3 7 5 E / C N . 4 / L . 1 4 1 7 and L . I 4 6 4 Î
E/CN.4/NG0/228;
E / G N . 4 / N G 0 / 2 2 9 ; E / C N . 4 / N G 0 / 2 5 1 ; E/CN.4A^G.4/ÍVP.I)
8, The CHAIRi-ffi.N drew the Commission's a t t e n t i o n to d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n Е/(Ш.4/Ъ.14^4У. and i n v i t e d the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on agenda item 18 to present i t s d r a f t report ( E / C N . 4 A G . 4 / W P . 1 ) .
E/CH.4/SR.1522
page 3
9. Mr.. EBMilCORiV ( A u s t r i a ) , i n t r o d u c i n g document E / C N . 4 / W G . 4 / W . 1 , s a i d that the. Working Group had unfortimately been imahle to reach agreement on a r t i c l e s I to I I I of the d r a f t d e c l a r a t i o n . The main stumbling-block had proved to be the proposed i n c l u s i o n of the words " t h e i s t i c , n o n - t h e i s t i c or a.theistic c o n v i c t i o n s " . i n a r t i c l e I . Another d i f f i c u l t y had been whether or not to pla.ce certain..phrases between brackets. Some representatives had considered that the t e x t submitted t o the Conmission by the Working Group should be based-on a concensus and should not therefore include expressions on which agreement had not been reaxhed... He read out a number of ajnendments and corrections which had been proposed to the t e x t of the d r a f t report and w i t h which he was i n agreement.
1 0 . The GHillH^ilH s a i d that the S e c r e t a r i a t had taken note of the changes concerned, and would incorporate them i n the fina.l v e r s i o n of the Working Group's report. 11. Mgr.• BRESSAH (Observer.for the Holy See) s a i d that h i s delegation was keenly i n t e r e s t e d i n the d r a f t d e c l a r a t i o n and also i n a possible convention on the e l i m i n a t i o n of a l l f o m s of intolerance and of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n based on r e l i g i o n or b e l i e f , since r e l i g i o u s freedom made i t p o s s i b l e f o r people to l i v e i n harmony w i t h one another while developing f u l l y as individ.uals i n a s o c i e t y tha.t was free of f e a r . i t wa.s therefore v/ith some d i s i l l u s i o n that h i s delegation had followed the discussions i n the Working Group during the present session. Despite thé fa.ct that there was every p o s s i b i l i t y of reaching an agreement on the. substance of the d r a f t d e c l a r a t i o n , i n e x p l i c a b l e , d i f f i c u l t i e s were being r a i s e d a f t e r 17 years of d i s c u s s i o n , :while innumerable people i n the v/orld were s u f f e r i n g because of t h e i r _ r e l i g i o n or b e l i e f s . 12,... Although i t ha.d not been p o s s i b l e to complete the d r a f t d e c l a r a t i o n , as requested by the General Assembly i n i t s r e s o l u t i o n ЗЗ/Юб, h i s delegation v/as i n favour, of adopting the t e x t of the f i r s t three a r t i c l e s , as given i n d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E/CH.4/L.I464, despite the f a c t that i t would have p r e f e r r e d greater emphasis to have been l a i d on the question of i n t o l e r a n c e and on the need f o r the p o l i t i c a l , economic, s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l b e l i e f s of the i n d i v i d u a l to be respected. 1 3 . Mr. McKIHHOH (Canada), i n t r o d u c i n g d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E/CN.4/L.I464, said that the Working Group had agreed on the substance of the f i r s t three a r t i c l e s of the d r a f t d e c l a r a t i o n but ha.d unfortunately been unable to achieve a consensus on t h e i r formulation. However, as the whole question had been under d.iscussion i n the United Nations f o r so long, h i s delegation and several others considered that i t was urgently necessary to make some headv/ay. The adoption of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n would .preclude ha,ving to s t a r t a l l over again at the next session of the Cominis'sion. 1 4 . Mr. LEWIN"(Agudas I s r a e l World Organization) s a i d that a d e c l a r a t i o n to eliminate r e l i g i o u s intolerance could do so much good merely by i t s inherent moral power that i t was hard to understand why i t had not y e t come i n t o being, e s p e c i a l l y as i t s exisi;ence would have no l e g a l consequences f o r any na.tion. I t v/ould not, a f t e r a l l , be unique. Many documents proclaiming the p r i n c i p l e of tolerance had preceded i t , i n c l u d i n g the B i b l e , and nothing could be more j u s t i f i a b l e than f o r the v/orld community to uphold the r i g h t of every person .to l i v e i n accordance with h i s b e l i e f s .
E/CN.4/SR.1522
page 4
15. I t was a source of great concern to h i s organization there there was opposition to the d e c l a r a t i o n , s i n c e - i t was inconceivahle that any State could disagree w i t h the. concept that d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on the grounds of r e l i g i o n or b e l i e f was an offence to htmian d i g n i t y . Twenty-three non-governmental organizations had urged, i n document E / C № . 4 / F G 0 / 2 2 8 , that the d r a f t i n g of the d e c l a r a t i o n should not be f u r t h e r delayed. The recent r e l i g i o u s r e v o l u t i o n i n an important country was a reminder that such a d e c l a r a t i o n was timely. He urged the Commission to adopt the f i r s t three a r t i c l e s of the d r a f t d e c l a r a t i o n , i n order to show that i t was f u l f i l l i n g the mandate of the General Assembly i n part at l e a s t . He also appealed to the Commission to place the question on the agendau f o r i t s next session. 1 6 . Mr. MANOLOV (Bulgaria) thanl-ced the Chairman-Rapporteur of the V/orking Group f o r presenting h i s delegation's amendments to the Group's report and expressed the. hope . that those amendments would be r e f l e c t e d i n the Commission's report on the item under consideration. Turning to d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E / C N . 4 / L . I 4 6 4 , he expressed surprise t h a i the Canadian delegation should be proposing the adoption by the Commission of ' . three d r a f t a r t i c l e s which not o n l j had not been adopted by the Vi/orking Group but had not even been formally dra.fted. In h i s view, the Cana,dian proposal c o n s t i t u t e d an act of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n against the p o s i t i o n s of c e r t a i n delegations. Moreover, i t contravened the Connission's r u l e s of procedure, and was therefore i l l e g a l . He would vote against paragraphs 1 , 2 and 5 of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n ' s operative parpt and against the annex, but was not opposed to paragraph 5 . 1 7 . Mr. LOCHTCHININ (Union of Soviet S o c i a l i s t Republics) drew a t t e n t i o n to an e r r o r i n paragraph 3 5 of the Spanish text of the Working Group's report ( E / C N . 4 / ¥ G . 4 / W P . 1 ) which completely d i s t o r t e d the meaning of the text of the USSR proposal r e f e r r e d to. 1 8 . Mr. HEREDIA PEREZ (Cuba) s a i d that h i s delegation, which f o r a number of years had taken an a c t i v e part i n e f f o r t s to d r a f t a d e c l a r a t i o n to which a l l members of the Commission could subscribe, s a i d he agreed i n substance with the a r t i c l e s annexed to d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E / C N . 4 / L . I 4 6 4 . He sympathized with the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n ' s aims but was surprised by the method used, which departed from normal p r a c t i c e . The Working Group, l i k e other working groups of the Conmiission, had always proceeded on the basis of consensus and the submission of reports to the Commission. I f the Canadian delegation wanted that p r a c t i c e to be abandoned, i t should make a proposal . to that e f f e c t . The method of asking the Commission to vote on a t e x t on which the Working Group had not reached a consensus, i f only f o r l a c k of time, was' unacceptable. 1 9 . Mr. MEZVINSKY (United States of America) s a i d that the Canadian proposal to adopt at l e a s t three a r t i c l e s of the d r a f t d e c l a r a t i o n seemed eminently reasonable since, as he understood, there had been agreement on those a r t i c l e s i n the Working Group. The item under consideration had been on the Commission's agenda f o r a long time end f a i l u r e to achieve any s u b s t a n t i a l progress at the present session would be most r e g r e t t a b l e . I f the Commission was unable to take even such l i m i t e d a c t i o n , i t might be best to admit defeat and turn the issue over to the General Assembly. His delegation would support Ihe Canadian d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n .
S/CN,4/SR.1522
page 5 2 0 . I-'ir. O'DQgOVM (observer f o r Ireland), said tha.i, i n addition to the amendments to the v/orking Group's report read out by the Chairman-Rapporteur, h i s delegation .had suggested that paragra,ph 26 of the report should be drafted to read: "Some r e p r e s e n t a n ves emphasized the need t o make progress towards an agreement and they r e c a l l e d General Assembly r e s o l u t i o n ЗЗ/Юб, which reo^uested the Commission to s t r i v e towards completion of the d r a f t declaration a t i t s t h i r t y - f i f t h session." 21. In the l i g h t of General Assembly r e s o l u t i o n ЗЗ/Юб, i t was h i g h l y important that the Commission should report at l e a s t some progress to the General Assembly at i t s t h i r t y - f o u r t h session. For a number of reasons, i n c l u d i n g l a c k of time, the Working Group had f a i l e d to a.dopt the e a r l y a r t i c l e s of the d r a f t d e c l a r a t i o n , but i t was evident that agreement on those a r t i c l e s was close a t hand. The o r i g i n of the three d r a f t a r t i c l e s annexed to d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E/CÍÍ.4/L.I464 was a.s f o l l o w s : a r t i c l e I consisted of paragra„phs 2 , 3 and 4 of the compromise text proposed by the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group and referred to i n paragra.ph 1 2 of the 'Working Group's report. A r t i c l e I I ( l ) was based on paragraph 1 of the Soviet proposal referred to i n paragraph 9 of the report, the word " b e l i e f s " r e p l a c i n g the words " t h e i s t i c , n o n - t h e i s t i c or a t h e i s t i c ' c o n v i c t i o n s " . A r t i c l e I I ( 2 ) v/as based on paragraph 1 of* the Soviet t e x t referred to i n paragraph 2 0 of the report and also on a r t i c l e 1 , paragraph 1 , of the I n t e m a d i o n a l Convention on the' E l i m i n a t i o n of A l l Forms of R a c i a l D i s c r i m i n a t i o n , L a s t l y , a r t i c l e I I I v/as based on a text suggested by France on the. basis of a Netherlands proposal which had received s u b s t a n t i a l support i n the v/orking Group, 2 2 . In expressing support f o r the Canadian d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n , he emphasized that differences i n the Working Group had r e l a t e d .to the framev/ork of the d r a f t a r t i c l e s , the p l a c i n g of p a r t i c u l a r paragraphs, q_uestions of emphasis and c e r t a i n proposals . remaining from previous years' discussions, but not to the three d r a f t a r t i c l e s whose adoption Canada, v/as proposing. 2 3 . i-Ir. CHARRY SAî'IFER (Colombia) endorsed the previous speaker's remarks and said that he not only supported the Canadian d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n but v/ished to become i t s co-sponsor. 2 4 . Mr. GNONLONb'OUN (Benin) said that h i s country, v/here some 3 0 r e l i g i o n s coexisted i n peace, had n o , d i f f i c u l t y i n endorsing the p r i n c i p l e of r e l i g i o u s tolerance. Eds d i f f i c u l t y v/as v/ith the reference i n the Canadian proposal to far-reaching agreement i n the Working Group. His impression, supported by the report of the Working Group's Chairman-Rapporteur, was that no consensus had been reached, 2 5 . I'd-. CA'LERO-RODRIGHES ( B r a z i l ) said that, much as he sympathized vdth the Canadian d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n , he doubted, v/hether adopting the proposed.short cut to general agreement v/ould improve the s i t u a t i o n . The only way to make progress was to persevere i n t r y i n g to achieve a. consensus v/ithin the Viorking Group. H i s delegation v/ould therefore abstain from v o t i n g on the Canadian proposal. 2 6 . ï'ir. SOYER (France) said t h a t , a f t e r I 7 years of e f f o r t , i t v/as time to show some r e s u l t s , at l e a s t i n the form of three d r a f t a r t i c l e s . • He believed that consensus on those a r t i c l e s was.v/ithin.reach and appealed to a l l delegations to support the Canadian proposal.
E/CN.4/Sfi.1522 page б 27. l i r . LOCHTCHININ (union of Soviet S o c i a l i s t fiepublics) remarked that the frequent references to Soviet proposals i n the V/orking Group's report were proof of the Soviet delegation's s p i r i t of co-operation and desire to reach consensus. Some progress had been made and s t i l l more could have been achieved had the V/orking Group had more time at i t s d i s p o s a l ; the report c l e a r l y showed that a measure of agreement already existed and that only a, fev; steps more were needed to reach the goal. Nevertheless, h i s delegation considered that adoption of d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E/CN.4/L.1464 would c o n s t i t u t e a h i g h l y dangerous precedent. He f a i l e d to see the grounds f o r the statement i n paragraph 1 that the V/orking Group had been unable to reach consensus on the question of submission of d r a f t a r t i c l e s to the Commission f o r adoption. So f a r as he v/as av/are, the V/orking Group had never discussed that question. He a l s o f a i l e d to see the point of the proposal contained i n paragraph 5 f o r the re-establishment of the V/orking Group at the Commission's t h i r t y - s i x t h session i f the V;orking Group v/as to be by-passed i n the manner proposed by Canada. He appealed to the Canadian delegation to reconsider i t s proposal i n viev/ of i t s dangerous consequences, not only f o r the V/orking Group on r e l i g i o u s intolerance but also f o r other vTOrking groups of the Commission v/hich operated on the consensus p r i n c i p l e . The Canadian proposal was unjust and d i s c r i m i n a t o r y , and the Commission v/ould be making a serious mistake by adopting i t . 28. lir. SOYER (Prance) said he considered that a concerted e f f o r t by the Commission covild lead to a successful outcome. Indeed, the Soviet representative had staled that a measure of agreement existed and had gone on to say that only a fev/ issues remained to be resolved. Since there v/ere no major d i f f i c u l t i e s , i t v/ould be unfortunate i f the Commission concluded i t s session v/ithout d e f i n i n g the area of a^greement. The area of disagreement v/as c l e a r l y centred on d r a f t a r t i c l e I I I i n the annex to the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n proposed by Canada. The Soviet Union had proposed the follov/ing texts "Discrimination and intolerance on the grovmds of r e l i g i o n or b e l i e f are fundamentally unjust and c o n s t i t u t e an offence to human d i g n i t y " and h i s delegalion d i d not believe that there could be disagreement on such an obvious t r u t h . There was near unanimity among other delegations to add a statement to the e f f e c t that d i s c r i m i n a t i o n constituted a v i o l a t i o n of the human r i g h t s and fundamental freedoms proclaimed i n the Charter, the Universal Declaration and i n the i n t e r n a t i o n a l covenants r e l a t i n g to human r i g h t s . H i s delegation could not believe that the Soviet delegation vzas shocked by the reference to fundamental instruments, p a r t i c u l a r l y since the Soviet Union had o f f i c i a l l y stated that i t s C o n s t i t u t i o n enshrined provisions r e f l e c t i n g those of the Charter, the Universal Declaration and the i n t e r n a t i o n a l covenants. His delegation did not understand the Soviet delegation's objections and would l i k e an explanation of why i t was opposed to references to i n t e r n a t i o n a l instruments that v/ere accepted i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y by the Soviet Union, 29. № . LOCHTCHININ (Union of Soviet S o c i a l i s t Republics) said that h i s delegation's very important question regarding paragraph 1 of the d r a f t ' r e s o l u t i o n had not been artsv/ered. His delegation therefore assvuned that the Canadian delegation v/ould be prepared to delete i t . I t v/ished to propose the follov/ing minor amendment to paragraph 2 of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n ; "Recommends to the V/orking Group f o r i t s prompt consideration and adoption at i t s next session the d r a f t a r t i c l e s contained i n the annex to the present r e s o l u t i o n s " . The purpose of that amendment v/as to prevent the v/ork of the Group from being undermined; h i s delegation believed that i t should be possible to a r r i v e at a consensus on those a r t i c l e s i n the course of the next session, thus achieving considerable progress.
L/CN.4/SH.1322 page 7 30. í-lr.МсКДШОН (Canada) i n r u i r c d wlietlier the Soviet aüaendment to paragraph 2ол the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n aëant that when the l/orking Group resumed i t s irork, i t woild adopt the three a r t i c l e s contaánod i n tlie annex to th.e d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n or resume i t s study -of those a r t i c l e s . He could agree to the Soviet delegation's amendment i f i t s purpose wa.s t o ovsrcofflo the procedural problem t o which i¿ had a l l u d e d , i n tha.t a precedent would be created by adopting a.rticlss which had merely been studied and discussed i n the Working Group. He coald also accept tho Soviet amendment i f i t meant that the Working Group v/ould not resume i t s study of the throe article,-? but v/ould continue i t s v/ork on tho d r a f t dacla,raution a.s a v.rhole. However, lie could not accept the 3.mendjriient i f i t s purpose v/a.s to re-open the debate on those - three a . r t i c l e 3 . 31 • i l r . I'EZVIl'JSIQ'" (United States of America) said that h i s delegation considered the ajiiendment submitted by the Soviet del9ga.tion to be a, delaying device' and that i t v/ished the dra.ft resolution, to be pvit to the vote. 32. Ilr. RIGS (panaj'.ia.) said t h a t , unless the Commission took some a.ction on the ma.tter,'It'-would finci i t s e l f i n exactly the same s i t u a t i o n i n one yea.r'з tii'I'IS.33» Mr. CH/iPiRY SijJlP.JE (Colombia) said that since the Canadian delegation l i a d not accepted the amendment submitted by the Soviet Union, he wished t o request that the vote should be taken by r o l l - c a . l l . 34• I-ir. .GRI-x/lCOM (Austria) i n q u i r e d vfhether, i n the event that the Canadian d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n v/as a,dopted, delegations v.roulbe e n t i t l e d to паке nev/ d r a f t i n g proposals on the three a r t i c l e s concerned at the Corúmission's next session. 35' Mr. V3.n BOVSH ( D i r e c t o r , D i v i s i o n of I-ium.an Eights) said that he could not ansv.rer that question. The Corarlssion i t s e l f v/ould have to take a. d e c i s i o n on. the matter a.t i t s t h i r t y - s i x t h session. 36. Mr. LQCHTCHIHIH (Union of Soviet S o c i a l i s t R e p u b l i c s ) , spealcing on a point of ordor, said lie though'b that some combers of the Coimaission had not f u l l y understood h i s delegation's i n t e n t i o n , namely that the d r a f t article,ii should be considered and adopted at the Co-".imlssion's next session. 37 • A v o t e v/as talcen by r o l l - c a . l l on the amendment proposed by bho Soviot Union to paragraph 2 of "draft r e s o l u t i o n II/CH.4/L.I464. 33.
39.
A u s t r i a , ha.ving been drav/n by l o t by Ы10 Chairman, v a s c a l l e d upon t o vote f i r s t . In favour;
Bulga.ria., Cube., Ira.q, Poland, Syi-ia-n Arau) Ее p u b l i c , Union of So'i/iet S o c i a l i s t Eepublics.
Aga.inst i
Australia., A u s t r i a , Ca.nada, Colombia., France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Panai.m, Peru, Portuga.l, Sv.'eden, United States of America., Uruguay.
Abstaining;
Benin, B r a z i l , Burundi, Cyprus, U-gypt, I n d i a , .Iran, Ivory Coa.st, Morocco, Nigeria., Paki3ta,n, Senegal, Uganda, Yugosla'via..
The Soviet amendraent v/as r e j e c t e d by 12 votes to 6, v/ith I4 abstentions.
E/CN.4/SR.1522
page 8
40.
A vote was talcen by i - o l l - c a l l on d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E/CN.4/L.I464.-
41-
Poland, having been dratm Ъу l o t by the Chairiiian, was c a l l e d upon to vote f i r s t . In favour;
Australia., A u s t r i a , Canada., Colombia, Cyprus, Egypt, Pra.nce, G-erma,ny, Federal Piepublic of, India., Ivory Coast, N i g e r i a , Pakistan, Panama, Peru, P o r t u g a l , Senegal, Sweden, United States of America, ürug-ua.y.
Aga.inst ;
None
Abstaining;
Benin, B r a z i l , B u l g a r i a , Burundi, Cuba., Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Poland, Syrian Ara.b Piepublic, Uga.nda, Union 01 Soviot S o c i a l i s t Eepublics, Yugoslavia.
42. Dra.ft r e s o l u t i o n E/CN.4/L.I464 v^as adopted by 19 votes to none, with 15 abstentions. 43 • Mrs. . SIBAL (India) s a i d tha.t she hoped that her delegation's vote i n favour of the draft r e s o l u t i o n would not be taken to заеап that India, a.pproved the procedure adopted. 44» Mr. HEREDIii P.dR7JZ (Cuba.,) said t h a i h i s delegation ha.d a.bstained i n the vote beca.use i t could not accept a. mothod of v.rork which was t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a i normally followed i n tho Coi¡mission. 45»
Mr. Eios (Pana.ma) took the Chair.
4 6 . Mr. EL-FATTAL (Syria.n Arab Republic) said that h i s delegation had a.bstained i n the vote beca;ase i t considered th.at the three dra.ft a.rticles should ha.ve been a.doptad. i n the Working Group before being submittod to the Coniinssion f o r appi'oval. H i s delegalion's vote should not bo construed a.s r e f l e c t i n g i t s f i n a l p o s i t i o n on those articles. 4 7 . te. LOCHTCIIININ (Union of Soviet S o c i a l i s t Republics) s a i d that h i s delegation ha.d abstained i n the vote because the Conmiission ha.d been put in. the. p c s i t i o n . of having to a.dopt a.rtÍGles of a dra.ft d e c l a r a t i o n without having f i r s t , discussed., them. He hoped t h a i the proced.ure follov/ed would not c o n s t i t u t e a. precedent f o r the work of the Coiiii?lssion's woricing groups. . , RIGHTS OF P.ERSOHS BELONGING TO NATIONAL, ETHtilC, líELIGIOUS ilíD LINGUISTIC MINORITIES (agenda item 23) ( s / C N , 4 / l 2 9 8 a,nd Add.l; Е / С Н . 4 Д . I 4 6 7 ; Е/СН.4/1:ЮО/231) 48.
lîr. TO.SEVSICI (Yugoslavia), speaking i n M e capacity as Chairman-Rapport.eu.r of the Working Group on the r i g h t s of persons belonging to na.tional, e t h n i c , religio-as and l i n g u i s t i c n l n o r i t i e s , s a i d that shortage of time ha.d prevented the Working Group from a,dopting the report contained i n d.ocument E / C N , 4 / L . 1 4 6 7 . He x^roposed, therefore, that the Commission shouldi a.dopt, without a vote, the report a.nd the di"aft r e s o l u t i o n contained, i n pa..ra.gra.ph 27 thereof. Since the Working Giroup had cosipleted i t s work, he had received tvro anend.m.ents to the report. The f i r s t , from the Norv/egian delegation, vrould replace pa.ragrc^ph 8 of the report by the .follov.lng text-s "8. The répresentativre of N .m.a.y drev; a t t e n t i o n to the differences i n d e f i n i t i o n of indigenous peoples and persons belonging to n a t i o n a l , e t h n i c , r e l i g i o u s and l i n g u i s t i c m i n o r i t i e s . His CTOvernmont had proposed amendments to the d.ra.ft
E/C1T.4/SR.1522
page 9
d e c l a r a t i o n so as t o make t h i s d i f f e r e n c e appear c l e a r l y i n each a r t i c l e , hux one might also consider adding a sepa,rate a r t i c l e to t h i s e f f e c t . I n a longer .perspective, a sepa.rate i n t e r n a t i o n a l instrument ought to be elabora.ted on. the r i g h t s .of indigenous peoples." Under the second amendm.ent, from the Gresk delegation, the words "taking i n t o a.,ccount a d l relevant documents" would be ad.ded at the end of operative paragraph 2 o f the draft r e s o l u t i o n . 4 9 . The CHAIBITOI suggested that the Commission should a,d_opt, by consensus, the draft report contained i n document р]/си.4/Ь.14б7, as am.en.ded, a;nd the draft r e s o l u t i o n contained i n paragraph 27 of that r e p o r t , as amended. 50.
I t wa.s so d-ecid,ed.
51.
Mr. Beaulne (Ca.nada) resumed the Chair,
FURTHER PROMOTION AND MCOURAGEI'IENT OF 1ШШ INCLUDING î
RIGHTS AND FUKDilffiNTAL FREEDOMS,
»
(a) QUESTION OF THE PROGRAMÍE ilND Î'IETHODS OF V/ORK OF THE COMt'IISSION; А Е Т Е Ш Ш Ш Е APPROACHES AND WAYS i\ND№ANS WITHER TEE UNIT^ NATIONS SYSTEM FOR IMPROVBIG THE EPIECTIVE ENJOIÎ-isNT O P ШЛ'ШТ RIGHTS Ж В P U N D Í Í Í S N T A L FREEDOMS (b)
E'IPORTANCE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE FIELD OF ШШ
RIGHTS (agenda item 1 1 )
(E/CN.4/1312 and Add.1-2; E/CN.4/1318 and Aáá.1-3} E / C N . 4 / 1 3 1 9 ; E / C N . 4 / 1 3 2 O 5 E/CN.4/1321 and Add.1-6; E / C N . 4 / 1 3 2 2 ; E / C N . 4 / L . 1 4 5 9 , L . I 4 6 2 and L.1482; E/CN.4/NGO/246; E / C N . 4 / N G O / 2 4 7 ; E/CN.4/NGO/249; S / C N . 4 / N G O / 2 5 4 P E/CN.4/NGO/2575 ST/HR/S.ER.A
52.
and Add.l)
The CHAIRI'LâN i n v i t e d the CoBmiissio.n to taJce up itemi 1 1 of i t s agend.a.
5 3 . Mr.№ZVIHSKY (United States o f America) said that the Coiamission had already s t a r t e d i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a„genda. item 1 0 . I t would seem, proper, t h e r e f o r e , to complete that item before t a k i n g up a.genda, item 1 1 . • 5 4 . The СНА1ЕМ/Ш said that the consultations on the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n s r e l a t i n g to agenda item 10 had not yet been concluded. 5 5 ' Mr.. EL-FATTAL (Syrian Ara.b Republic) proposed that the Chairman's suggestion that the Commission should taJœ u-p item. 1 1 of i t s agenda, should be put to the vote. 56.
The Chairman's suggestion was adopted by I 3 votes to 4? with 7 alstentions.'
5 7 ' Mr. DIEYE (Senegal) introduced the report of the V/orking Group on the questions of f u r t h e r promotion and encoura.gement of hum.an i t g h t s and fundamental freedoms, and of a l t e r n a t i v e approaches and wa.ys end m.eans f o r approving the -effective enjoyment of huEe.n r i g h t s (E/CN.4/L.1482) . He hoped that the Comimission vrould be able to adopt the report and the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n contained i n paragraph 24 thereof vrithout a vote.
E/CT.4/SR.1522
page
10
5 8 . lir. Ш''1В ( A u s t r a l i a ) said that h i s delegation had taken part i n the Working Group's consultations. Further consultations had been held subsequent to the pi-oduction of document E / C N . 4 / L . 1 4 8 2 , as a r e s u l t of which he wished to suggest that the text of opera.tive paragraph I3 of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n contained i n pa,ragro.ph 24 of that document should be amended to read: " I 5 . Ifotes General Assemb r e s o l u t i o n 3 3 / 1 0 5 which requested the Commission to talce i n t o account, i n continuing i t s v/ork on the o v e r - a l l anadysis, the viev/s e3cpressed on the various proposals, i n c l u d i n g a post of United Ifetions High Commissioner f o r Human Rights and'that the Commission could n o t reach an agreement on the l a t t e r i " . He h o p e d - t h a i , with that amendment, the report and the dra,ft r e s o l u t i o n could be -adopted v/ithout a vote. 5 9 . Mr. 1-ЕЭТ1НЗКТ (United States of America) said that i t v/as h i s delegation's understanding that the v/ords " i n t h i s co-nnexion" should be deleted from op-erative paragraph 2 of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n . 6 0 . The CHAIRI-il^T said that i f there v/as no o b j e c t i o n , he would take i t that the Commission víished to adopt, without a vote, the report contained i n document E / C H . 4 / L . 1 4 8 2 , v/ith the amendment to operative paragraph 2 of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n r e f e r r e d to b y the representative of the United States and the amendment to operative paro,graph I 3 of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n suggested by the representative of Australia,. 61.
I t vjas so decided.
62. Ifc. 0RTI2i (Cuba) asked v/hether, a,s a r e s u l t of the rmendment to eperativo' paragraph I3 of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n , the Commission would be unable to discuss the matters r e f e r r e d to i n tha,t para.graph i n the f u t u r e .
6 3 . Mr. lu'lIB ( A u s t r a l i a ) , supported by Mr. EL-FATTAL (Syrian' .'rab-Republic) ; appe ale to the representative of Cuba not to press h i s point. As amended,, the para,gra,ph v/ñ,s nothing more than -a statement of f a c t tha,t t h e question had b e e n discussed bvrt. that agreement ha.d not. been reached. 6 4 . The CI1VIR]^'UH'T satd that, i f there v/as no o b j e c t i o n , he v/ould take i t that the Commission v/ishod to adopt, without a vote, the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n on agenda item 11(a) contained In document E/CIT.4/L.I459. 65'
I t v a s so decided.
'
66. The CKiIRJ-'LIH said that i f there was no o b j e c t i o n , .he v/ould take i t that the Commissiorr'"wished:'to •'albpty-v/ithout a-vote, the-draft resolution.on agenda item'11(b) contained i n docum.ent E / C H . 4 / L . I 4 6 2 . 67.
I t wa,g so decided.
6 8 . Ш. ШВШЪ (Federal Republic of Germany) said that h i s delegation supported " d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n E / C N . 4 / L . 1 4 6 2 , but wished to make a number of comments. In the Federal Republic of Germany, n a t i o n a l machinery f o r the promotion and p r o t e c t i o n of human r i g h t s which v/ent f a r beyond the g u i d e l i n e s had been Gsto,blished. That ma,chinery consisted mainly of an independent j u d i c i a r y extending up to the Pedera,l Constitution.a,l Court, to which individup,ls could appeal against
E/CH.4/SR.1522 page 11 v i o l a t i o n s of. t h e i r huinan r i g h t s . H i s delegation considered that the word "s.uch" i n operative paragraphs 2 and 3 of the r e s o l u t i o n covered those i n s t i t u t i o n s as w e l l . The high-ranking human r i g h t s o f f i c e r of the Federal M i n i s t r y of J u s t i c e , who had p a r t i c i p a t e d . i n the Seminar r e f e r r e d to i n the f i r s t and second preambular"paragraphs, had submitted a paper on the system o f the Federal Republic o f Germany. H i s delegation hoped that the information he had supplied would be taken i n t o account by the S e c r e t a r i a t under paragraph 5 o f the r e s o l u t i o n , MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE SITUATIOH AHD ENSURE THE ЬГО1-ЖН RIGHTS Al© DIGNITY OF ALL MŒÎANT UORiaSRS (agenda item 14) (E/CH.4/1316; S/CN.4/1325| Е/СН.4/ПОО/234; E/CN.4/HGO/245) 69. Ms. BOCBTA (Observer f o r Spain) introduced the report o f the Working Group on measures to improve the s i t u a t i o n and ensure the huma,n r i g h t s and d i g n i t y of a l l migrant workers (s/CN.4/l3l6). A f t e r long n e g o t i a t i o n s , the Working Group had approved the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n contarned. i n paragraph 9 oí the report. The three questions to which the Working Group considered that p r i o r i t y should be given vrere l i s t e d i n operative paragraph 7(b) of the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n , 70, Since i t had not been p o s s i b l e , a.t the current session, to. discuss the matter i n s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l , she vrished to propose, on behalf.of her ovm delegation and the delegations of P o r t u g a l , Colombia, Turkey and Yugoslavia, that consideration should, be given to the establishment of a nev/ vrorking group on migrant vrorkers - the terms of reference of vrhich vrould. be e s t a b l i s h e d by the Economic and S o c i a l C o u n c i l at i t s next session - to continue the vrork ali>eady begun by the e x i s t i n g Working Group, and. that the item on migrant v/orkers should be retained on the agenda f o r the Commission's next session. 71« The CHAIRMAN said that, i f there vras no o b j e c t i o n , he vrould. take i t that the Commission vrished to adopt, v/ithout a vote, the report and d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n contained,
i n docxmient E/CN.4/1316. • 72.
I t v/as so decided.
75. Ms. REYES-RETAHA (Observer f o r Mexico) said that despite, the v/ork done by the • United Nations and other interna.tional organizations, p a r t i c u l a r l y ILO, much remained to be done to improve the s i t u a t i o n o f migrant v/orkers. The fvmàamental r i g h t s of such vrorkers vrere sometimes v i o l a t e d and they vrere victims of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . I t was f o r that reason that the Mexican Secretary of State f o r Foreign A f f a i r s had' STOggested, at the t h i r t y - t h i r d session o f the General Assembly, that a code s e t t i n g f o r t h the r i g h t s o f such vrorkers should be dravm up. Mexico had co-sponsored General Assembly r e s o l u t i o n 33/1б35 requesting the Secretary-General to examine, v/ith Member States and s p e c i a l i z e d agencies, the p o s s i b i l i t y of preparing an i n t e r n a t i o n a l agreement on the r i g h t s o f migrant v/orkers. I n the Working Group e s t a b l i s h e d under r e s o l u t i o n 1978/22 of the Economic and. S o c i a l C o u n c i l , her delegation had, been one of those vrhich had recommended, that the Commission, i n considering the s i t u a t i o n of migrant v/orkers, should, explore the p o s s i b i l i t y of preparing a convention on t h e i r r i g h t s , i n order to co-operate v/ith the Secretary-General of the United Nations i n the vrork entrusted to him by the General Assembly i n paragraph 7 of r e s o l u t i o n 33/163.
Ë/CN.4/SR.1522
page 12 PERIODIC REPORTS ON HUIIâN RIGHTS (agenda item 19) s (b)
PERIODIC PvEPORTS OH CIVIL А1П) POLITICAL'RIGHTS (E/CN.4/1304;
E/CN.4/L.
1444)
74. fe. HOYT (United States ox America), Chairman/Rapporteur of the Ad Hoc Committee on P e r i o d i c Reports, suggested that the Commission should adopt, without a vote, r e s o l u t i o n I I (Yearbook on Himian Rights) contained i n document E/CN.4/1304= 75« № . SANON (Deputy D i r e c t o r , D i v i s i o n of Huimn Rights) said that the f i n a n c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of the decisions contained i n the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n were set f o r t h i n document E/CN.4/L.1444» 76. The CHAIRMN s a i d that, i f there wa.s no o b j e c t i o n , he would take i t that the Commission wished to adopt, without a vote, d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n I I contained i n document E/CN.4/1304. 77-
I t was so decided.
78. Mr. DYICOV (Union of Soviet S o c i a l i s t Republics) said that h i s delegation attached great importance to a l l documents on human r i g h t s . He therefore considered that the document i n d i c a t i n g the status of m u l t i l a t e r a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l instruments i n the f i e l d of human r i g h t s concluded under the auspices of the United Nations should be maintained and that operative paragraph 4 of d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n I contained i n document E/CN.4/1304 should be deleted. 79» With regard to r e s o l u t i o n I I contained i n document E/CN.4/1304J he s a i d that funds from obsolete programmes shotxld be used to finance the p u b l i c a t i o n o f the Yearbook. ORCJkNIZATION OP WORIC 80. I'Ir. McKINNON (Canada), r e p l y i n g to a question put by Mr. ERMCORA ( A u s t r i a ) , said that the consultations on the d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n s r e l a t i n g to-agenda-item 10 had not produced any r e s u l t s . 81. The CHAIRMAN said that, i f there was no o b j e c t i o n , he would take i t that the Commission decided to defer, u n t i l i t s t h i r t y - s i x t h session, completion of agenda items 10 and I9 and consideration of agenda items I 5 , 17, 25 and 26. 82.
I t was so decided. The meeting rose at 11.43 P-m.
