Commission On Human Rights Adopts Resolutions On Situations in Former Yugoslavia, Myanmar, Equatorial Guinea and Rwanda

7/16/2020 Commission on Human Rights adopts resolutions on situations in Former Yugoslavia, Myanmar, Equatorial Guinea and Rwanda - Equato…
ReliefWeb
RW COVID-19 page: Find latest updates on global humanitarian responses
Equatorial Guinea + 4 more
Commission on Human Rights adopts

resolutions on situations in Former Yugoslavia,
Myanmar, Equatorial Guinea and Rwanda
Source: OHCHR
Posted: 23 Apr 1999
Originally published: 23 Apr 1999
EVENING
HR/CN/99/56
23 April 1999
Also Approves Chairman's Statements on East Timor and Cyprus; Resolutions on Debt Relief,
"Unilateral Coercive Measures", Human Rights Cooperation The Commission on Human Rights
wrapped up a daylong session of debate on resolutions the way it started -- with a lengthy
deliberation about the situation in Kosovo.
The evening session featured a sizable debate on a comprehensive resolution condemning the
Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) for numerous human-
rights violations; the omnibus measure also reviewed human-rights matters in Croatia and in
Bosnia and Herzegovina. One section of the resolution focussed on the situation in Kosovo,
calling for an end to Serbian policies of ethnic cleansing, forced expulsions, and violent actions
there, and also called for the Kosovo Liberation Army to end serious abuses committed there. The
resolution was adopted by the Commission by a roll-call vote of 46 in favour and 1 opposed, with 6
abstentions.
https://reliefweb.int/report/equatorial-guinea/commission-human-rights-adopts-resolutions-situations-former-yugoslavia 1/21
In addition, the Commission passed by consensus resolutions on human-rights situations in

Myanmar, Equatorial Guinea, and Rwanda, and adopted Chairman's statements on matters in
East Timor and Cyprus.
It approved by roll-call votes resolutions concerning human rights and unilateral coercive
measures; and concerning the effects on the full enjoyment of human rights of economic-
adjustment policies arising from foreign debt. And it passed by consensus a resolution on
cooperation with representatives of United Nations human-rights bodies.
There was a long discussion about striking from the resolution on the former Yugoslavia the entire
section specifically dedicated to Kosovo. The Russian Federation said it would have supported the
resolution without the Kosovo chapter, but other countries maintained that elimination of the
provision would make the entire measure meaningless and would trim the powers of the Special
Rapporteur for the region.
A motion to delete section 3 of the resolution failed on a roll-call vote, with 33 in favour of retaining
the section and 4 opposed, with 16 abstentions.
A representative of Croatia objected to the resolution's summation of that country's human-rights

performance, saying the Croatian Government had made great progress and had cooperated fully
with United Nations human-rights mechanisms and did not deserve to be included in a resolution
dealing with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the Commission welcomed progress
in some areas, but expressed grave concern over what it said were continuing serious violations,
including political repression and such offences as widespread and systematic use of forced
labour, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, enforced disappearances, torture, abuse of
women and children, arbitrary seizures of land and property, and oppressive measures directed at
ethnic and religious minorities, including forced relocation.
A representative of Myanmar charged that the resolution was full of glaring lies, was politicized,
was factually incorrect, and was insulting.
The resolution on Equatorial Guinea, among other things, encouraged the Government to improve
the conditions of prisoners and detainees and to avoid torture; to investigate and impose penalties
on those responsible for human-rights violations; and to limit military courts strictly to trying
military offences committed by military personnel. As part of the resolution, the Commission
decided to appoint a Special Representative for one year to monitor the situation of human rights
in Equatorial Guinea.
A representative of Equatorial Guinea said the country had cooperated with the Commission on
numerous occasions but rejected those policies that did not respect self-determination and the
rule of law, and said foreign intervention in its affairs should only be on the advisory level.
In its resolution on Rwanda, the Commission welcomed the continuing efforts of the Government
to build a State based on the rule of law and respect for human rights; condemned the illegal sale
and distribution of arms and all other forms of assistance to former members of the Rwandan
armed forces, Interahamwe and other insurgent groups; reiterated its concern at conditions of
detention; urged the Government of Rwanda and invited the International Tribunal for Rwanda to
give utmost priority to the prosecution and punishment of crimes of sexual violence against
women; and reiterated its appeal to the international community to provide financial and technical
assistance to help strengthen protection of genocide survivors and witnesses and the
administration of justice in Rwanda.
The following countries addressed the meeting: Rwanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Mexico, Germany, China, Cuba, Hungary, Myanmar, Croatia, Pakistan, India, Russian Federation,
Peru, United States, Argentina, Canada, France, Chili, Venezuela, Uruguay, Colombia, Mauritius,
Equatorial Guinea, Japan, Tunisia, Nepal.
The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. Monday 26 April, to continue action on draft
resolutions.
Action on resolutions
In a resolution (E/.CN.4/1999/L.31) on cooperation with representatives of United Nations human-

rights bodies, adopted without a vote, the Commission urged Governments to refrain from all acts
of intimidation and reprisal against those who sought to cooperate or had cooperated with
representatives of United Nations human-rights bodies, or who had provided testimony or
information to them; those who availed or had availed themselves of procedures established
under United Nations auspices for the protection of human rights and all those who had provided
legal assistance to them; those who submitted communications under procedures established by
human-rights instruments; and those who were relatives of victims of violations; requested all
representatives of United Nations human-rights bodies, as well as treaty bodies monitoring the
observance of human rights, to continue urgent steps to help prevent the hampering of access to
United Nations human-rights procedures in any way; requested them to help prevent the
occurrence of intimidation or reprisals; and requested them to include in their reports references to
allegations of intimidation or reprisals or of hampering of access to human-rights procedures, as
well as accounts of action taken by them in response.
LIU XINSHENG (China) said the delegation wanted to make some comments. Agenda Item 9
dealt with the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms everywhere in the world. There
were still five resolutions remaining. But the delegation noticed that L.31 was the only non-country
draft resolution. This was the first year since the agenda-reorganization effort. In view of the fact
that this resolution was not compatible with this item, the delegation tried to make contact with the
sponsors and explain this concern. L.31 should be under Item 18. This suggestion was rejected,
however. It was very regrettable. The Chinese delegation did not oppose the text, and would not
oppose it. But the resolution should have been changed to a more appropriate agenda item.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said Cuba endorsed the statement of China, since it had
noted that the restructuring of the agenda had not been properly followed. Postponement was
warranted. The issue should be postponed until the next session of the Commission.
ANDRAS DEKANY (Hungary) said the delegation was disappointed. This had always been a
consensus resolution. Members were urged to adopt the resolution without a vote.
REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that in order to cooperate and help work progress, as long as
the Commission's report stated the desires of Cuba upon this issue, Cuba would have no
objection to the declaration being adopted by consensus.
In a resolution (E/.CN.4/1999/L.32) on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, adopted without

a vote, the Commission welcomed the accession by the Government of Myanmar to the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and earlier to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child; the pardoning and release on humanitarian grounds of U
Ohn Myint and Dr. Thida, but noted at the same time a significant increase in the number of
political prisoners during 1998; welcomed the efforts currently being undertaken by the Special
Envoy of the Secretary-General for a visit in Myanmar; reaffirmed the need to provide adequate
protection and assistance for persons fleeing from Myanmar; expressed grave concern at the
continued closure of many institutions of higher education for political reason for over two years;
that the composition and working procedures of the National Convention did not permit either
members of Parliament-elect or representatives of ethnic minorities to express their views freely,
and that the National Convention was not working towards national reconciliation; expressed
concern at the widespread and systematic use of forced labour and the failure of the Government
so far to ensure cessation of such practices, in particular by the military; that the Government
refused to cooperate with and had yet to agreed to a visit by the Special Rapporteur; deplored
continuing violations of human rights, including extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions,
enforced disappearances, torture, abuse of women and children, arbitrary seizures of land and
property, and oppressive measures directed at ethnic and religious minorities, including forced
relocation, destruction of crops and fields, and the widespread use of forced labour; the wide
disrespect for the rule of law; violations of the rights of persons belonging to minorities, including
systematic programmes of forced relocation directed against ethnic minorities, notably in Karen,
Karenni, Rakhine and Shan States and in Tennasserim Division; continuing violations of the rights
of women, especially women refugees, internally displaced women and women belonging to
ethnic minorities or the political opposition; continuing violations of the rights of children, in
particular through conscription of children into forced-labour programmes, through their military
and sexual exploitation, and through discrimination against children belonging to minority groups;
escalation in persecution of the democratic opposition; severe restrictions on freedoms of opinion,
expression, assembly, and association; called upon the Government to establish a constructive
dialogue with the United Nations system; to consider becoming a party to additional relevant
international human-rights instruments; urged the Government to cooperate fully with the Special
Rapporteur and to allow him, without preconditions, to carry out a field mission; strongly urged the
Government to implement the Special Rapporteur's recommendations and to ensure full respect
for human rights; to ensure the establishment of democracy in accordance with the will of the
people as expressed in the democratic elections of 1990; to allow all citizens to participate freely
in the political process; to release immediately and unconditionally those detained for political
reasons, including those in Government "guest houses"; to improve conditions of detention and
allow competent international humanitarian organizations to communicate freely and confidentially
with prisoners; to ensure the safety and well-being of all political leaders, including Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi; urged all other parties to the hostilities in Myanmar to respect international humanitarian
law; urged the Government to fulfil its obligations as a State party to the Forced Labour
Convention; to cease the laying of landmines in particular as a means of ensuring forced
relocation, and to desist from the forced conscription of civilians to serve as human
minesweepers, as indicated in the report of the ILO Commission of Inquiry; to end enforced
displacement of persons; and to fulfil its obligations to end impunity for perpetrators of human-
rights violations, including among members of the military; and decided to extend the mandate of
the Special Rapporteur for a further year.
U AYE (Myanmar) said the delegation commended those Governments which had aided its efforts
to inject truth and fair-play into the draft resolution. However, once again, a small handful of
delegates harbouring vindictive views had caused the draft to be full of glaring lies that essentially
politicized a humanitarian issue. Myanmar could not treat the draft, in consequence, with any
seriousness, since the spirit of the draft had been contaminated. The draft was a patchwork of
irrelevancies, untruths and inconsistencies. The Commission should note that the draft attempted
to sabotage and undo the multitude of improvements to the human rights situation that had taken
place in Myanmar, for example by inciting dissidents to destabilize the country, or by denigrating
the efforts made by the present Government to improve the lives of the citizens of Myanmar.
Some of the allegations were insulting, and Myanmar rejected them. The draft was factually
incorrect and highly politicized, with allegations that had been proven to be untrue by independent
observers.
Myanmar wished to dissociate itself from the draft entirely.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.34/Rev.1) on the situation of human rights in the Federal Republic

of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina,
approved by a roll-call vote of 46 in favour and 1 opposed, with 6 abstentions, the Commission
stressed once again the crucial role that progress in promoting and protecting human rights had to
play in the success of the Peace Agreement, and the need to focus international human rights
efforts in the countries concerned on the core problems of lack of full respect for the human rights
of all individuals; massive forced expulsions and obstructions of return of refugees and displaced
persons in safety and dignity, and return to them property and occupancy rights of which they
were deprived; the lack of resources for capacity building in the areas of rule of law and
administration of justice, and lack of independence of the judiciary; lack of respect for the freedom
of expression and association and for the freedom and independence of the media; continuing
obstruction of the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; and
missing persons; the Commission appealed once more to the international community to support
efforts for the promotion and protection of human rights and insisted that the parties act to
promote and protect democratic institutions of Government; requested the High Commissioner for
Human Rights and the Secretary-General to take concerted action with the assistance of the
international community to develop early-warning procedures in the field of human rights.
In regard to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the Commission
expressed its grave concern at ongoing abuses of human rights and the deteriorating
humanitarian and human-rights situation; condemned the continued repression of the independent
media, the passage of the Serbian Law on Public Information; regretted that the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia had not complied with the recommendations of the Personal Representative of the
Chairman-in-Office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe; and also regretted
the express refusal of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to allow a visit by the Special
Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions; called upon authorities in the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to comply with all the previous resolutions of the Commission and
with the recommendations contained in the reports of the Special Rapporteur and to cooperate
with other relevant mechanisms of the Commission; to comply fully with its obligations to
cooperate with the Tribunal; to institutionalize democratic norms; to end torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of persons in detention; to respect the rights of all
persons belonging to minority groups, and to support the unconditional return of the long-term
missions of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe; welcomed positive
developments in Montenegro with regard to the democratization process, in particular freedom of
the media and the efforts to give shelter to Kosovars, and called upon the international community
to help the countries of the mandate to establish appropriate safeguards to ensure the security
and fair treatment upon return of those who sought temporary protection and asylum, and to
continue to support existing national democratic forces and non-governmental organizations in
their efforts to build a civil society and to achieve multi-party democracy.
With regard to Kosovo, the Commission called upon the authorities of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (FRY) to ensure a verifiable stop to all military action and an immediate ending to all
violence and repression against the civil population of Kosovo; to ensure the withdrawal from
Kosovo of all military, police and paramilitary forces; to agree to the stationing of an international
military peacekeeping presence; to agree to the unconditional return of all internally displaced
persons and refugees; condemned the grave, horrendous and ongoing war crimes and abuses of
human rights in Kosovo, especially the violent repression of the non-violent expression of political
views, systematic terrorization of ethnic Albanians and others, torture, deaths in detention,
summary executions, and illegal detentions and widespread destruction of property; also
condemned the escalation of the Serbian military offensive against the civilian population in
Kosovo in recent weeks; underscored the grave concern of member States regarding ethnic
cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity; condemned abuses by elements of the
Kosovo Liberation Army, in particular killings in violation of international humanitarian law,
enforced disappearances and abduction and detention of Serbian police, as well as of Serb and
Albanian civilians; emphasized that those found responsible for serious violations would be held
accountable and would not escape justice; insisted that the authorities of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia and the ethnic Albanian leadership in Kosovo condemn acts of terrorism, refrain from
all acts of violence, and encourage the pursuit of political ends through peaceful means; insisted
that the combatants implement a cease-fire and demilitarize the province of Kosovo; insisted that
the Government of Yugoslavia release all political detainees; allow establishment of democratic
institutions in Kosovo; and cooperate with international humanitarian organizations in dealing with
the issue of missing persons in Kosovo; and work on the basis of the Rambouillet Accords to
establish a political framework agreement for Kosovo;; emphasized once again that improvement
in the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Kosovo, as well as
in the rest of its territory would assist the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in establishing a full
range of relations with the international community; and expressed grave concern over the
overwhelming humanitarian crisis in Kosovo and the forced expulsion of hundreds of
thousands of Kosovar Albanians.
In regard to Croatia, the Commission welcomed the cooperation of the Government of the
Republic of Croatia with the Special Rapporteur, and took note of the request of the Government
for technical cooperation and assistance programmes; called upon the Government to undertake
greater efforts to adhere to democratic principles and to continue its efforts to attain the highest
level of compliance with international norms and standards of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, by full and fair implementation of its programmes and by full cooperation with and
implementation of the recommendations of the international organizations operating in the
Republic of Croatia, respecting the freedoms of association and the press, respecting the right of
non-governmental organizations to operate without restrictions, undertaking serious judicial reform
and guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary, implementing swiftly and completely the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in all
Government practices, continuing to fulfill rights and guarantees as pledged; endorsed the
recommendations of the Special Rapporteur; called upon the international community to support
the involvement of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in human-rights monitoring in the
region of Eastern Slavonia, and continue to provide for an international presence.
In reference to Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Commission took note of the progress made in some
areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the implementation of the Peace Agreement and improvement
in respect for human rights; expressed its serious concern about continuing human-rights
violations within Bosnia and Herzegovina and continuing obstruction of the full implementation of
the human rights provisions of the Peace Agreement; emphasized that the primary responsibility
for ensuring the progressive achievement of democratic goals and building a tolerant, multi-ethnic
society lay with the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina; underlined the obligation of the authorities
of Bosnia and Herzegovina at all levels to implement the recommendations of the High
Representative and the decisions of the Commission on Human Rights for Bosnia and
Herzegovina; called upon all parties to cease obstruction of the work of the common institutions of
Bosnia and Herzegovina; condemned the intimidation and perpetration of violence against
minority refugees and all acts designed to discourage their voluntary return and called for the
perpetrators to be brought to justice; called upon the officials of Bosnia and Herzegovina to
cooperate with relevant international humanitarian agencies and their neighbours to facilitate such
voluntary returns; endorsed the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur; emphasized
the views of the General Assembly contained in paragraphs 18 and 19 of its resolution 53/163.
In the context of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the Commission
called upon all States to meet their obligations to cooperate fully with the Tribunal and urged them
to support the Tribunal to the fullest extent possible; called upon all indicted persons to surrender
voluntarily to the custody of the Tribunal; urged all parties to respect the "rules of the road";
urgently called once again upon the competent authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to
apprehend and surrender for prosecution all persons indicted by the Tribunal; noted with dismay
that the large majority of those indicted were still at large and appeared to be living freely in
Yugoslav territory; stressed the evidence that the most senior leaders of the Government of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were responsible for the continuing refusal of the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia to meet its obligations to cooperate with the Tribunal and demanded that they
comply with their obligation to cooperate with the Tribunal; demanded that the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia;
urged all parties to respect the primacy of the Tribunal in all cases of war crimes, crimes against
humanity, genocide and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions; called upon the international
community to give the Tribunal every appropriate help to bring into custody suspects indicted by it.
In reference to missing persons, the Commission expressed its satisfaction with the progress
made in the exhumation of remains and the identification of missing persons; welcomed the
increased level of cooperation in the joint exhumation process in Bosnia and Herzegovina; insisted
that Federal Republic of Yugoslavia authorities cooperate with international humanitarian
organizations in dealing with the issue of missing persons in Kosovo.
In reference to the Special Rapporteur, the Commission decided to renew for one year the
mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the region; requested that
the Special Rapporteur pay particular attention to discrimination against persons belonging to
ethnic minorities and displaced persons, refugees and returnees who fell within his mandate, and
address human rights issues that transcended the borders between the States covered by his
mandate and which could be addressed only through concerted action in more than one country.
The roll-call vote on resolution L.34/Rev.1 was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile,
Colombia, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, France,
Germany, Guatemala, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar,
Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar,
Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, the
United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Against: the Russian Federation.
Abstentions: China, Congo, Cuba, India, Mexico and Nepal.

An earlier roll-call vote was held on section 3 of resolution L.34/Rev.1, with the section retained
after 33 voted in favour, 4 against, and 16 abstained.
The roll-call vote was as follows:
In favour: Austria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Canada, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, El Salvador, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Luxembourg,
Madagascar, Morocco, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Republic of
Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, the United States and
Uruguay.
Against: China, Cuba, India and Russian Federation.
Abstentions: Argentina, Bhutan, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Ecuador, Guatemala,
Indonesia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Venezuela.
SPOMENKA CEK (Croatia) said the Commission would shortly for the eighth time take action
upon this issue. Strengthening of human rights was a constant effort made by the Croatian
Government, despite constant Serbian aggression. Croatia was the only country in the region
where organized return of refugees was a reality. This was the result of a long process of
confidence-building measures taken by the Government. These measures were not adequately
reflected in the resolution. There had been a change of focus of the international community.
Attention had shifted from war to the building of peace and security after conflict. The resolution
dealt with gender issues and other matters in a way that generally occurred under thematic issues.
Croatia's human-rights performance had been distinguished from that of the other countries
involved by the international community. The current approach of the Commission towards the
three countries of the mandate was redundant, and Croatia should be separated from the other
two countries. The technical cooperation programme soon to be signed was welcomed. With its
implementation, Croatia would move towards a truly democratic country, and it was hoped that the
Commission would recognize this.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said the draft resolution strongly pronounced on the situation of human
rights in Kosovo. The would have had co-sponsored the draft if some suggestions had been
considered. The delegation had asked to have language included asking the Kosovo Liberation
Army (KLA)to respect humanitarian law. It had requested in paragraph 19 a phrase condemning
terrorism. It would have been realistic to delete paragraph 16 and amend 19 to deal with current
realities. Bosnians should have been listed among the minorities. However, at the very least,
Pakistan had suggested that in paragraph 9 there should be a reference to the Muslin minority.
The United States should consider this suggestion. It should not have been difficult for the co-
sponsors to accept this. Having said that, the delegation would vote for the resolution. It was
hoped that these concerns would be taken into account in the future.
H.K. SINGH (India) said that in several previous interventions, it had expressed serious concern
over the serious human-rights violations occurring in the FRY and the Kosovo area. Full respect
for human rights, including minority rights, was vital. It was regrettable that several elements of the
draft resolution were imbalanced, notably section 3, which did not even indicate that Kosovo was
an integral part of the FRY. This section ignored the fact that the resolution of incidents of this
nature required immediate cessation of conflict. A peaceful solution obtained through negotiation
was necessary. India could not go along with this section, and requested that this section be cut
from the resolution.
VLADIMIR PARSHIKOV (Russian Federation) said delegation had frequently given its assessment
of what was happening in Yugoslavia. It rejected NATO's involvement, and the violation of NATO's
charter. The aggressors who were subjecting civilians to daily bombing did not have the moral
right to talk about proper behaviour. NATO had bombed radio and television stations while
complaining about the treatment of media. The delegation supported the proposal of the Indian
delegation that there be a separate vote on part 3, and the delegation would vote against it. The
delegation asked the Chairwoman to put the entire resolution to a roll-call vote, and Russia would
vote against it. Without the Kosovo portion, the delegation would have voted for the draft.
RODRIGO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that with regard to the request for a separate vote
on section 3, Cuba had voted in favour of condemning the violations perpetrated by all sides of the
conflict. Section 3 was most unbalanced. It was hypocritical that it was the United States, which
was bombing the FRY and causing deaths, was the one to propose this resolution. Cuba would be
voting against the resolution.
JORGE VOTO-BERNALES (Peru) said it would like to reiterate its position; it would vote for the
entire text of the pending resolution.
HAROLD KOH (United States) said the delegation could not support the proposal of India, since
section 3 was the heart of the resolution. To remove Kosovo from the mandate of the Special
Rapporteur would be to make his mandate pointless. The US would vote yes to keeping section 3,
and yes to the resolution.
HERNAN PLORUTTI (Argentina) said the delegation was struck by the fact that the resolution was
divided into chapters. In this way, the Serb province would have had its own chapter. With regard
to paragraphs 13 and 20 of chapter 3, the delegation would abstain. Those elements were for the
Security Council to deal with.
MARIE GERVAIS-VIDRICAIRE (Canada) said it was gravely concerned over the situation in
Kosovo, and stressed the responsibility of the Serbian authorities. Canada would vote in favour of
section 3.
WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany) said it was regrettable that matters involving Kosovo might be
separated from the resolution. Such a decision would make it difficult for the Special Rapporteur to
operate there. The EU would vote in favor of the section, and the entire text.
PHILIPPE PETIT (France) said that France supported the statement of Germany. If there were to
be a separate vote on section 3, France would vote for it, and for two reasons. First, the section
had the merit of recalling the five conditions set to Belgrade to put a stop to the intervention of
NATO; second, the text condemned the grave violations of human rights that had given rise to a
humanitarian disaster.
JAVIER ILLANES (Chile) said it had already expressed its concern about the human rights
situation in Kosovo. It would have liked for this resolution to be more balanced. Now, there was
this third section, which could be voted on separately, and the delegation would abstain. It lacked
balance, it was too dense, it was full of opinions and judgments. On the resolution as a whole, it
would vote yes.
VICTOR RODRIGUEZ (Venezuela) said that as with previous resolutions, it had grave concern for
the human rights situation in the FRY. In voting on section 3, it would abstain, since there was not
sufficient balance. In voting on the resolution as a whole, it would vote in favour. A separate
chapter on the situation of the human rights in Kosovo could in no way insult the territorial integrity
of the FRY.
CARLOS SCARBI (Uruguay) said it supported the text of the resolution, and it would vote for it as
a whole. It felt, however, that there were formal defects since it set Kosovo on the same footing as
sovereign States.
CAMILO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Colombia) said there was grave concern over the violation of
human rights in Kosovo, and the responsibility for them lay with the Belgrade authorities.
Colombia would vote in favour of the resolution as long as it was not construed as an insult to the
territorial integrity of the FRY. In the case of a vote upon section 3, Colombia would abstain.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said it believed that the section relating to Kosovo was indeed the most
important part of the draft resolution given the current grave developments. It would vote in favor
of that section, as well as the entire resolution.
LIU XINSHENG (China) said that Kosovo was part of the FRY, and the issue was part of the
internal affairs of the FRY. The solution should be found via dialogue, considering all the issues
and respecting the territorial integrity of the FRY. NATO should cease its military actions against
the FRY to avoid further casualties. Some elements of the draft resolution were not in conformity
with the position of China, so it would abstain from the vote on the entire draft.
DHURMAHDASS BAICHOO (Mauritius) said Mauritius would vote in favor of the resolution.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.36/Rev.1) on the situation of human rights in Equatorial Guinea and

assistance in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission encouraged the
Government of Equatorial Guinea to ensure the independence and effectiveness of its national
commission on human rights; recognized that elections held on 7 March were organized and
conducted in a peaceful and calm atmosphere but took note with concern that some flaws and
irregularities were observed during the electoral process, and therefore called upon the
Government to continue its dialogue with all political parties and to ensure the independence and
effectiveness of the national electoral commission, so as to guarantee fair, transparent and
democratic conditions in the future; encouraged the Government to strengthen its efforts to
improve the conditions of prisoners and detainees; encouraged the Government to pursue efforts
already undertaken to integrate women effectively into the process of socioeconomic, cultural and
political development of the country; encouraged it to promote the necessary conditions for the full
enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural rights, including the rights of the child; recommended
that the Government ratify the basic international human-rights instruments; encouraged it to
strengthen further its efforts to improve the functioning of the judiciary and the training of judges,
prosecutors, lawyers, police and security forces, and to limit military courts strictly to trying military
offences committed by military personnel; encouraged it to publish regularly laws, decrees and
other Governmental acts; to reiterate its instructions to the forces of law and order not to order or
make arbitrary arrests and to respect the rights of individuals to security, physical integrity and
freedom; to avoid torture; to investigate and impose penalties on those responsible for human-
rights violations; encouraged the Government and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights to elaborate a comprehensive programme of technical assistance in the field of human
rights; and decided to appoint a Special Representative for one year to monitor the situation of
human rights in Equatorial Guinea.
RUBEN MAYE NSUE MANGUE (Equatorial Guinea) said it had respect for the struggle for self-
determination by all peoples, since the State of Equatorial Guinea had achieved such goals
through struggle itself. Equatorial Guinea had cooperated with the Commission on numerous
occasions. However, this cooperation had been rooted in the new mentality
the world had assumed after the Cold War. Equatorial Guinea rejected those policies that did not
respect self-determination and the rule of law. The initiative of consolidating human rights and
democracy should come from the people and the leaders of the country. Foreign intervention
should only be on the advisory level. Dialogue should continue. The text of the resolution on the
country had been the object of intense negotiations. Equatorial Guinea was concerned over
paragraph 3, which had flaws and irregularities.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.37) on the situation of human rights in Rwanda, adopted by

consensus, the Commission welcomed the continuing efforts of the Government of Rwanda to
build a State based on the rule of law and respect for human rights; reiterated its strong
condemnation of the crime of genocide and crimes against humanity that had been committed in
Rwanda in 1994; reaffirmed that all persons responsible for these crimes were individually
responsible and accountable for them; reiterated its request that all States cooperate fully with the
Government of Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in ensuring that all
those responsible for such crimes were brought to justice; noted the efforts which the International
Tribunal had made to improve its performance and encouraged further measures to enhance its
efficiency; expressed concern over the effectiveness of the Tribunal's witness-protection
programme and called for its improvement; noted indications of improvement in the situation in
Rwanda; recognized that promotion and protection of human rights were essential for achieving
security and stability in the Great Lakes region; reiterated its solidarity with genocide survivors;
condemned the illegal sale and distribution of arms and all other forms of assistance to former
members of the Rwandan armed forces, Interahamwe and other insurgent groups; reiterated its
concern at conditions of detention; urged the Government of Rwanda and invited the International
Tribunal to give utmost priority to the prosecution and punishment of crimes of sexual violence
against women; reiterated its appeal to the international community to provide financial and
technical assistance to help strengthen protection of genocide survivors and witnesses and the
administration of justice in Rwanda; commended the Government on its continued efforts to
improve the situation of children; regretted that no agreement could be reached on a new mandate
for the Human Rights Field Operation in Rwanda and encouraged the Government to seek
cooperation within a mutually agreed framework to obtain financial and technical support to
reconstruct the human-rights infrastructure in the country; welcomed the creation by Rwanda of a
National Human Rights Commission and encouraged members of the Commission to hold as soon
as possible a round table meeting with the Special Representative on Rwanda to develop a plan
of action; welcomed the commitment of the Government to promoting national unity and
reconciliation; recommended that the international community continue to provide development
assistance for reconstruction and the long-term stability of Rwanda; and decided to extend the
mandate of the Special Representative for another year.
AUBIN MINAKU NDJALANDJOKI (Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) said delegation
wanted to clarify its participation dealing with the situation of human-rights in Rwanda. The
delegation expressed its reservations because of a number of concerns. These concerns would
have required substantive amendments. In paragraph 25, the delegation noted that the
Government was carrying out forced groupings. The delegation wanted to express its grave
concerns over this policy of establishing hamlets on ethnic grounds. It was not unlike apartheid.
The delegation was bothered by the fact that the resolution said nothing about the field operation
by the UN, which had been interrupted by Rwanda. On 9 April, the Security Council said that
uninvited troops were located in the DRC. They were armed troops, and the Government of
Rwanda recognized this. The Commission should have had at least expressed concern about that.
The ongoing ethnic conflict was the fundamental cause of the unhappy situation in the DRC and in
Central Africa today.
WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany), speaking on behalf of the EU, the Central and Eastern European
Countries, and Cyprus, welcomed the resolution. The promotion and protection of human rights for
all was necessary. A regional element the resolution should have addressed was cross-border
violations by the DRC. Rwanda was offered support for all future progress.
In a measure on the situation of human rights in East Timor, the Commission, having discussed
the human-rights situation in East Timor, expressed its deep concern at the serious human-rights
situation and at the outbreaks of violence, particularly the recently reported killings of civilians in
Liquica and Dili. The Commission took into account that talks under the auspices of the UN
Secretary-General aimed at achieving a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable
solution to the question of East Timor taking place in New York were now at a critical stage. The
Commission requested the Secretary-General to present a report on the human-rights situation in
East Timor at its fifty-sixth session.
In a measure on the question of human rights in Cyprus, the Commission decided, without a vote,
to retain on its agenda sub-item (a), entitled "Question of human rights in Cyprus" of the current
item 9 and to give it due priority at its fifty-sixth session, it being understood that action required by
previous resolutions of the Commission on the subject would continue to
remain operative.
HAROLD KOH (the United States), addressing voting under item 9 of the agenda, said the US
believed that resolution L.29 was deeply flawed. It should have avoided euphemisms in the body
of the text, for example -- "forced labour" should have been replaced by "slavery", since this, along
with religious persecution, was often an element of a war in Sudan. The resolution should not
have welcomed the peace agreement as described as such by the Sudanese Government. The
resolution expressed concern for arbitrary executions on both sides, but the overwhelmingly guilty
party was the Sudanese Government. Reports of recent improvement should not have been
welcomed. The US joined consensus so as to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, so
that continuing reports would be received.
RYUICHIRO YAMAZAKI (Japan), explaining two votes under item 9, said the delegation had found
resolution L.27 well-balanced, and welcomed the improvement of human rights in Iran, and hoped
that the Government would take further action. However, Japan thought the international
community should allocate resources to States which showed a commitment to improving the
state of human rights. Regarding L.32, Japan had certain reservations regarding the text. The
Government of Myanmar should be encouraged to continue to improve the situation of human
rights on its own initiative. The text showed the concern of the international community, and it was
in the interest of the Government of Myanmar to allow a visit of the Special Rapporteur. Japan was
prepared to help Myanmar.
KAMEL MORJANE (Tunisia) said that in resolution L.28 which had been adopted today, Tunisia
supported the request referring to the disappearance of Kuwaitis. The delegation was thinking
solely of the humanitarian issues, hoping that it would result in detente between Iraq and Kuwait.
The international community should work towards alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people,
particularly children, who were suffering because of a lack of medication.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said in reference to resolution L.28 that the Government was
concerned about the situation in the Gulf, which had resulted in a grave humanitarian crisis in Iraq.
This element had been missing from the text of the resolution. Iraq should resolve the issue of
missing Kuwaitis and should cooperate with the Tripartite Commission on this issue and others.
This human tragedy should not be allowed to fester any longer.
SHAMBHU RAM SIMKHADA (Nepal) said the delegation had abstained in the vote on the
situation of human rights in the States of the former Yugoslavia because of the inclusion of section
3 of the resolution.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.12) on human rights and unilateral coercive measures, adopted by

a roll-call vote of 37 in favour and 10 opposed, with 6 abstaining, the Commission urged all States
to refrain from adopting or implementing unilateral measures not in accordance with international
law and the Charter of the United Nations, in particular those of a coercive nature with
extraterritorial effects, which created obstacles to trade relations among States, thus impeding the
full realization of human rights, in particular the right to development; rejected the application of
such measures as tools for political or economic pressure against any country, particularly against
developing countries, because of their negative effects on the human rights of vast sectors of their
populations, among them children, women, the elderly, the disabled, and ill people; reaffirmed the
right of all peoples to self-determination; also reaffirmed that essential goods such as food and
medicines should not be used as tools for political coercion and that under no circumstances
should people be deprived of their means of sustenance and development; underlined that
unilateral coercive measures were one of the major obstacles to implementation of the Declaration
on the Right to Development; invited the new working group on the right to development to give
due consideration to the issue of unilateral coercive measures; invited relevant Special
Rapporteurs and thematic mechanisms of the Commission to pay due attention to such coercive
measures; and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to pay due attention and give
urgent consideration to the present resolution.
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia,
Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, India,
Indonesia, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger,
Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri
Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Against: Austria, Canada, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Romania, the United Kingdom
and the United States.
Abstentions: Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and Republic of Korea.
HAROLD KOH (the United States) said the US it was unable to support the resolution since each
nation had the right to choose with which nation it chose to trade.
In a resolution (E/.CN.4/1999/L.17) on the effects on the full enjoyment of human rights of the
economic adjustment policies arising from foreign debt, and, in particular, on the implementation
of the Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted by a roll-call vote of 30 in favour and 15
opposed, with 8 abstentions, the Commission stressed that structural-adjustment policies had
serious implications for the ability of developing countries to abide by the Declaration on the Right
to Development and to formulate national development policies; stressed the importance of
continuing to implement immediate, effective and durable actions for alleviating the burdens of
debt and debt-service of the developing countries with debt problems; affirmed that the permanent
solution to the problem lay in the establishment of a just and equitable international economic
order which guaranteed the developing countries better market conditions and commodity prices,
stabilization of exchange rates, easier access to financial and capital markets, adequate flows of
new financial resources and easier access to the technology of developing countries; stressed the
need for economic programmes arising from foreign debt to take account of the specific
characteristics, conditions and needs of the debtor countries and the need to incorporate the
social dimension of development; affirmed that the exercise of the basic rights of people of debtor
countries to food, housing, clothing, employment, education, health services and a healthy
environment could not be subordinated to the implementation of structural-adjustment policies and
economic reforms arising from debt; emphasized the important need for initiatives on the foreign
debt, in particular the debt initiative for the heavily indebted poor countries, and the decision of the
Paris Club to go beyond the Naples terms, and noted with concern the rigidity of the eligibility
criteria approved by the international creditor community in the context of those initiatives;
emphasized the need for new financial flows to debtor developing countries from all sources, in
addition to debt-relief measures that included debt cancellation; requested the Special Rapporteur
on the effects of foreign debt to present an analytical report to the Commission, paying particular
attention to the negative effects of debt and policies adopted to deal with it, and to measures
taken by Governments, the private sector and international financial institutions to alleviate such
effects; called upon Governments, international financial institutions and the private sector to
consider canceling or reducing the debt burdens of the countries worst effected; and considered
that, to find a durable solution to the problem, there was a need for a political dialogue between
creditor and debtor countries within the UN system.
In favour: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Cape Verde, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritius,
Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Senegal, South
Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Against: Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia,
Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Romania, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Abstentions: Argentina, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Mexico, Peru, Republic of Korea and the
Russian Federation.
SEBASTIEN SIGOUIN (Canada) said the delegation recognized that the question of foreign debt
had great implications for the economic development of developing countries, and the quality of
life of citizens of these countries. Canada had frequently annulled foreign debt. However, Canada
would vote against the resolution, due to concerns that it did not address the matter in focus of the
Commission's concern for human rights, and that it misrepresented the nature of foreign debt.
RYUICHIRO YAMAZAKI (Japan) said the country was the biggest donor of foreign aid and would
continue to be in the future. This resolution addressed reducing debt. The Commission was not
the appropriate forum for discussing this issue. The World Bank had the expertise and the
mandate to address it, and for that reason, Japan did not support the resolution.
GEORGE MOOSE (the United States) said the US supported forgiveness and the restructuring of
debt. It would vote against the resolution because it soughtto impose conditions upon agreements
which had been privately negotiated.
Primary country:
Equatorial Guinea
Other countries:
Montenegro / Myanmar / Rwanda / Serbia
Source:
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Format:
News and Press Release
Language:
English
Related Content
Rwanda Rwanda Update COVID-19 (15 July 2020)
Source: WHO Posted: 16 Jul 2020 Originally published: 15 Jul 2020
Myanmar UNICEF in Chin State: Regional Brief
Source: UNICEF Posted: 16 Jul 2020 Originally published: 24 Jun 2020
Myanmar UNICEF in Kachin State: Regional Brief
Myanmar UNICEF in Rakhine State: Regional Brief
Service provided by
UN OCHA
OCHA coordinates the global emergency response to save lives and protect people in
humanitarian crises. We advocate for effective and principled humanitarian action by all, for all.
© 2020 all rights reserved.

Commission On Human Rights Adopts Resolutions On Situations in Former Yugoslavia, Myanmar, Equatorial Guinea and Rwanda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Commission On Human Rights Adopts Resolutions On Situations in Former Yugoslavia, Myanmar, Equatorial Guinea and Rwanda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/16/2020 Commission on Human Rights adopts resolutions on situations in Former Yugoslavia, Myanmar, Equatorial Guinea and Rwanda - Equato…

RW COVID-19 page: Find latest updates on global humanitarian responses

Equatorial Guinea + 4 more

Commission on Human Rights adopts

Originally published: 23 Apr 1999

In addition, the Commission passed by consensus resolutions on human-rights situations in

A representative of Croatia objected to the resolution's summation of that country's human-rights

In a resolution (E/.CN.4/1999/L.31) on cooperation with representatives of United Nations human-

In a resolution (E/.CN.4/1999/L.32) on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, adopted without

Myanmar wished to dissociate itself from the draft entirely.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.34/Rev.1) on the situation of human rights in the Federal Republic

The roll-call vote on resolution L.34/Rev.1 was as follows:

Against: the Russian Federation.

Abstentions: China, Congo, Cuba, India, Mexico and Nepal.

The roll-call vote was as follows:

Against: China, Cuba, India and Russian Federation.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.36/Rev.1) on the situation of human rights in Equatorial Guinea and

In a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.37) on the situation of human rights in Rwanda, adopted by

In a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.12) on human rights and unilateral coercive measures, adopted by

The roll-call vote was as follows:

The roll-call vote was as follows:

Rwanda Rwanda Update COVID-19 (15 July 2020)

Source: WHO Posted: 16 Jul 2020 Originally published: 15 Jul 2020

Myanmar UNICEF in Chin State: Regional Brief

Source: UNICEF Posted: 16 Jul 2020 Originally published: 24 Jun 2020

Myanmar UNICEF in Kachin State: Regional Brief

Source: UNICEF Posted: 16 Jul 2020 Originally published: 24 Jun 2020

Myanmar UNICEF in Rakhine State: Regional Brief

Source: UNICEF Posted: 16 Jul 2020 Originally published: 24 Jun 2020

© 2020 all rights reserved.

You might also like