Third Committee Debate on the situation of Human Rights in Iran November 21, 2006 CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, I invite the Committee to resume its consideration of Agenda Item 67(C), entitled Human Rights Situation and Reports of Special Rapporteurs and Representatives and to take action on Draft Resolution L.41, entitled Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. I first give the floor to the Secretary to read out a statement of program budget implications arising from the Draft Resolution. I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Cuba. CUBA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of course, before moving to consideration of this item, since – CHAIRMAN: Point of order. I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Finland. FINLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we have some unclarity regarding the rules of procedure on this occasion. The statement that the Distinguished Delegate of Cuba seems to be making is a general statement on the issue on which delegations have already spoken extensively. The debate on that item is no longer open. SECRETARY: Point of order, please. FINLAND: Mr. Chairman, may I continue? CHAIRMAN: Okay. Point of order, Cuba. CUBA: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I insist in this case we are neither discussing the item referred to by Finland. We are moving on to 67-C, and before we move on to consideration of this draft resolution, the delegation of Cuba has a clarification to make. That's our right, and we believe that no one can take away our right to make that statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN: I give the floor to the Secretary to clear the Rule of Procedure. SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I like that atmosphere of -- [LAUGHTER] Mr. Chairman, I think there is a practice in the Rule of Procedure. The practice of the Committee is known to all. The Rules of Procedure does not script every single move that this committee is to make, and therefore, in the view of the Secretariat, the Distinguished Representative of Cuba is within its right, his right to request the floor at the beginning of the consideration of an item on this case, a subitem. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I give the floor back to the Distinguished Representative of Cuba. The floor is yours, sir. CUBA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving me the floor. I would now like to begin my statement. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the states members of the Non-Aligned Movement, Cuba reaffirms what our heads of state and government agreed at the 14th Summit Conference regarding country-specific resolutions in the field of human rights, and I quote, The heads of state or government of the Movement reemphasized that the exploitation of human rights for political purposes, including selective targeting of individual countries for extraneous considerations which is contrary to the founding principles of the movement and the UN Charter should be prohibited. The heads of state or government of the states members of the Non-Aligned Movement also stressed their, and I quote once again, adherence to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and to the founding principles of the movement and oppose and condemn selectivity and double standards in the promotion and protection of human rights as well as all attempts to exploit human rights as a pretext for political purposes. These two paragraphs are contained in the final document of the 14th Non-Aligned Movement Summit held in Cuba from the 11th to the 16th of September 2006. Cuba, in its capacity as Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, encourages all members of the Movement to adhere to these principles when casting their votes on the country-specific draft resolutions on which action is to be taken during this meeting of the Third Committee of the General Assembly. We request that this statement be included in the official records of this meeting. Once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for having given us the floor as we begin our consideration of Agenda Item 67-C. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Cuba. I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. IRAN: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for giving me the floor before debating the Draft Resolution L.41. Indeed, I asked the floor at this stage to bring to the attention -- CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. You can have your statement after the Secretary gives the statement about the program budget implications. Thank you. I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Finland. FINLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union. Since the Chair is allowing statements at this point, my delegation has requested the floor to make a statement. CHAIRMAN: [INAUDIBLE] the program budget. Thank you. MALE SPEAKER: Point of order. CHAIRMAN: Point of order. I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Finland. FINLAND: Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry to have to request a point of order. This is precisely the point that I was trying to make earlier. The established practice of the Third Committee has not been to have general statements at this point, because we have a general discussion on items when they are introduced. In our view, that debate is over, and we are now moving to take action on this particular draft resolution. On the consideration of the draft resolutions, there is established practice. There are rules of procedure. We would respectfully request that the Committee respect those rules and the established practice. However, if other delegations are given the floor to make general statements, our delegation will continue to request the floor on those occasions, as well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I give the floor to the Secretary to make a statement about program budget implications. SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before making the statement on oral -- an oral statement on program budget implications, I would first like to make a number of technical corrections based on the English text of the draft resolution that was submitted by the main sponsor. Some editorial changes have been introduced in the text that were deemed not acceptable by the main sponsor, who wishes to revert to its original text. And I will read those changes or corrections. In Preamble of Paragraph 6, replace the words taking note of with the word noting. SECRETARY: Point of order, Finland. CHAIRMAN: Point of order. I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Finland. FINLAND: Mr. Chairman, I am very, very sorry to disrupt the orderly proceedings of the Third Committee. Believe me, it is not my intention and not my wish to do so. However, we have received -- we have heard a statement from one delegation on the same issue before the floor was given to others. We would respectfully request to have the same right as was given to other delegations on this point to make a statement. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: [INAUDIBLE] order. I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Cuba. You have the floor. CUBA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to refer to procedure. I believe that you explained at the beginning that we are now beginning discussion of Item 67.C, and we were going to move on to consideration of the draft resolution. Prior to the consideration of that draft resolution, my delegation believed that it had every right to make a statement. That right is granted to every delegation. We believe, Mr. Chairman, that what's important here in our work is not to lose pace. It's not a question of defining whether or not or determining whether or not a delegation can make a statement. My delegation would be grateful if the delegations of this committee read the rules of procedure and not redefine what the practice is of this Committee. The delegations here in the room, we would ask them to turn to the rules of procedure and to read them. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Cuba. I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just need to clarify this, that my delegation's intention was not to make a general statement. Indeed, we were going to ask for adjournment of debate. That's why we wanted -- we were intending to make a short remark and short statement in order to ask to adjourn the debate for this particular resolution. So we were not intending to make a general statement whatsoever. If I may continue, thank you very much, again, for giving me the floor before debating the Draft Resolution L.41. Indeed, I asked the floor at this stage to bring to the attention of the Distinguished Delegates the following comments. Just a week ago, the Third Committee adopted a resolution entitled Promotion -- CHAIRMAN: [INAUDIBLE] for the Secretary to make an announcement about rule of procedure. Thank you. SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the situation is getting tense, and I would like to seek through you a clarification from the Distinguished Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran whether or not she is moving at this point for an adjournment of debate under 116. If that were to be the case, then she should be allowed to proceed with her statement. If she is not moving or raising to an adjournment of the debate under Rule 116 at this present stage, then I would trust, Mr. Chairman, that the Distinguished Representative of Finland should be afforded the opportunity to resume his statement. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to make a clarification, please. IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in view of the widespread support that the country-specific resolutions are being opposed by many countries, I wish to invoke the Rule 116 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly and request that no action should be taken on the Draft Resolution A/C/61/41, entitled Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN: I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Canada. CANADA: Person -- a point of order, if you please. If you could clarify whether our friend from Iran has the authority under the rules to make such an intervention before the Secretariat has finished introducing and explaining the context in which we are in. CHAIRMAN: The answer is yes, a motion -- a motion to adjourn debate can be raised at any point after we start the consideration of a resolution. Distinguished Delegate -- Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran has moved for adjournment of the debate on Draft Resolution L.41 under the term of the Rule 116 of the Rules of Procedures. In accordance with the Rules of Procedures, I give the floor to two representatives to speak in favor of the motion and two representatives to speak in opposition of the motion, after which the motion shall be put immediately to the vote. Does any member wish to speak in favor of the motion? I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Pakistan. PAKISTAN: Thank you, Chairperson. I have requested the floor to support the motion for adjournment of the debate on the Draft Resolution L.41, entitled, Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Chairperson, last week, on 16th November 2006 the Third Committee adopted an important resolution entitled, Promotion of Equitable and Mutually Respectful Dialogue on Human Rights. Pakistan, together with many other countries, voted in favor of that resolution, which stressed the need to avoid politically motivated and biased country-specific resolutions as well as the selective targeting of individual countries for extraneous considerations. The adoption of this resolution was a clear manifestation by the majority of the member states that the practice of tabling country resolutions for selective and partial consideration should be discouraged at the multilateral framework of the United Nations. Chairperson, one obvious lesson that we have learned from the previous sessions of the Third Committee were country resolutions -- excuse me -- were debated and contested is that while such resolutions do not encourage better promotion of human rights in the respective countries, they definitely provide stimulus to estrange and alienate national governments through the name and shame approach. Another problem of country resolutions is that they often ignore and overlook the national efforts in promotion and protection of human rights. Instead, they create artificial barriers in the way of equal and constructive dialogue between the member state and the relevant international human rights mechanisms. While Pakistan believes that all human rights are universal, inalienable, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, it is important that the international human rights agenda should be addressed in a fair and balanced manner. This can only be done with an approach based on dialogue and cooperation and not one of exclusion and confrontation such as the country-specific resolutions. As a member of the organization of the Islamic Conference as well as the Non-Aligned Movement, Pakistan has consistently opposed country-specific resolutions. In line with our firm and principled position, Pakistan fully supports the no action motion on the Resolution L.41 and would vote in favor. We would strongly urge all delegations to support this motion in order to save the Third Committee from indulging in the undesirable practice of naming and shaming developing countries. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Pakistan. I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Indonesia. INDONESIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my delegation consistently supports the reform of the United Nations human rights system, which is, among others, to enhance the credibility of its machinery in dealing with human rights situations. Indonesia also fully supports the international endeavor to improve the human rights situation worldwide. We, however, maintain that we need to do away with the practices of politicization and selectivity associated with country-specific resolutions, as they have severely undermined the effectiveness of the [INAUDIBLE] Human Rights Commissions. In this regard, we are of the strong feeling that in dealing with country-specific situations, we need to observe faithfully the relevant principles we have agreed upon as contained in the General Assembly Resolution on the establishment of the Human Rights Council. We support any efforts to develop new modalities of addressing human rights situations which enjoy confidence from the wide membership of this organization. These modalities should give emphasis on constructive approaches and give consideration to the capacity-building needs of member states. A coherent approach among relevant bodies in dealing with these units also be devised in order for this to be more effective. Mr. Chairman, just last week this Committee adopted the Resolution on Promotion of Equitable and Mutually Respectful Dialogue on Human Rights, which my delegation supported and cosponsored. The letter and spirit of the resolution are fully in line with the UN Charter and the principles contained in the resolution on the establishment of the Human Rights Council, and therefore should provide guidance to our engagement with concerned countries in dealing with their human rights situations. We believe the content of the resolution should be observed in good faith by all member states. We see in the tabling of Draft Resolutions such as the one before is not helpful to our common efforts in enhancing the credibility of the United Nations [INAUDIBLE] in dealing with country-specific resolutions as well as in improving our ways and means in dealing with human rights promotion and protection in general. Consequently, we cannot support the approach that has been adopted by the Draft Resolution. We will vote for the proposal of a no action motion, and we appeal all other delegations to vote for the proposal for a no action motion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Indonesia. Does any member wish to speak in opposition? I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Canada. CANADA: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Today, the Third Committee of the General Assembly is set to consider a resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran. One of this body's most fundamental responsibilities is to address serious human rights concerns wherever they may arise. No country should be beyond this committee's scrutiny. And while no country can claim a perfect human rights record, there are cases that particularly merit this Committee's attention, cases where governments have condoned and often been the instrument of human rights violations. It is important for the international community to be able to speak out about such cases. Canada, like many countries, is fully supportive of cooperation. But when a country does not demonstrate a will genuinely to engage its own citizens nor cooperate with the international community and does not acknowledge the need to address a serious situation, then, Mr. Chairperson, the international community has no choice but to express its views. This is not, I repeat, a frivolous resolution. It has been brought forward again this year by no less than 43 countries, including now Bulgaria, because it is essential that the General Assembly send out a sustained, consistent message that the human rights situation in Iran has not been forgotten, and that there are expectations of real change for the better. I submit that a procedural maneuver should not be used to thwart the Third Committee in its efforts to engage in debate or express concerns on the human rights situation in any country. This motion negates the jurisdiction and responsibility of the General Assembly. It undermines its credibility. It seriously weakens its relevance. Indeed, it is for this reason that Canada, as a matter of principle, will not bring forward a no action motion on the resolution proposed by Iran on the situation of indigenous people and immigrants in Canada, despite our belief that this resolution does not stand up to scrutiny on its merits. A successful motion to adjourn debate today on the resolution on the human rights situation in Iran would send a negative message to the world that the General Assembly refuses to assume its responsibility to look at a serious human rights situation. Mr. Chairperson, if the United Nations is to be a credible voice on human rights, it needs to consider serious human rights situations on their merits. We therefore strongly urge member states to vote no on this motion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Canada. I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Australia. AUSTRALIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Australia deeply regrets that a no action motion has been called on the Draft Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Australia is intent on ensuring that United Nations bodes, including the Third Committee, continue to be fora for addressing serious human rights situations wherever they occur. Regardless of the content of any resolution, therefore, we consider that all texts submitted to the Third Committee should be reviewed and actioned on their merits. Delegations should be able to register their views on the content of any resolution, and procedural motions should not be used to prevent delegations from expressing their views on substance. Australia therefore opposes all no action motions on principle. We therefore cannot support the motion to adjourn debate on this resolution, and we call on other delegations to join us in opposing this action. I thank you, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Australia. We shall now proceed to vote on motion to adjournment -- to adjourn the debate on Draft Resolution L.21 -- Sorry, 41. Please turn to the voting machine. All those in favor of the motion to adjourn the debate please press the button, the green button. All those against the motion, please press the red. And all those abstaining on the motion please press the yellow button. Has everyone voted? Kindly check to make sure your vote is properly recorded. Please lock the machine. In favor, 75. That is, the vote is follows: In favor, 75. Against, 77. Abstentions, 24. The motion is rejected. I first now give the floor to the Secretary to read out the statement of program budget implications arising from the draft resolution. SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I will resume the -- to bring to the attention of the Committee the corrections that have to be made to the text based on the original text submitted by the main sponsor, and which was edited. In PP6, replace the words taking note of with the word noting. In PP6, replace the words taking note of with the word noting. In OP1(h), replace the words areas with the word field. In OP2(f), in the third line, delete the word end between the words Baluchis and Kurds and delete the words as well as between the words Kurds and Christians. In the fifth line, capitalize in the -- capitalize the first letter of the word faith in Bahai Faith. In OP3(c), in the second line, insert the word and after the words amputation and flogging. In the seventh line of the English version of the text, replace the words in this regard, takes note of with the words noting in this regard. In OP3(a) in the fourth line, insert the word and after the words civil and political rights. In OP3(d) in the fifth line, insert the word and after the words the age of 18. Also, replace the word moratorium in the last line with the word moritoria. In OP4 in the fourth line from the end, delete the word these before the words special procedures. And all semicolons within paragraph should be replaced by commas. Mr. Chairman, I have made this -- I have highlighted these corrections at the express request and at the insistence of the main sponsor, which -- who was -- which was not in agreement with the editorial changes introduced by the Secretariat. Allow me now to proceed and to recall that at the time of the introduction of the draft resolution, the following delegations joined the list of cosponsors: Federated States of Micronesia, Moldova, New Zealand, Palau and the former Yugoslav Republic of Yugoslav -- of Macedonia. Mr. Chairman, the oral statement I'm about to make is made in accordance with Rule 153 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. Under the terms of Operative Paragraph 4 of Draft Resolution A/C.3/61/L.41. The General Assembly would encourage the thematic procedures of the Human Rights Council inter alia, the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions; the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers; the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief; the Special Rapporteur on Freedom -- on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights to Freedom of Opinion and Expression; the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders; the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to visits or otherwise continue their work to improve the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and urges the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to live up to the commitment it made when it issued a standing invitation by cooperating with the special procedures and to illustrate how their subsequent recommendations have been addressed, including recommendations of special procedures that have previously visited the country, and decide to continue its examination of the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran at its 62nd Session under the items entitled -- under the item entitled Human Rights Questions. In his report to the 61st Session of the General Assembly on the Revised Estimates Resulting from Resolutions and Decisions Adopted by the Human Rights council at its first session and first and second special sessions, the Secretary-General has informed the Assembly that budgetary provisions have already been made for the activities related to the various human rights mandates listed in the Annex to the Human Rights Council Decision 1/102 within resources approved for the biennium 2006-2007. These fall under Section 2, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council Affairs and Conference Management; Section 23, Human Rights; and Section 28(E), Administration Geneva of the Program Budget for the biennium '06-'07. By Decision 1/102, the Human Rights Council decided to extend exceptionally for one year, subjected a review to be undertaken by the Council in conformity with General Assembly Resolution 60/251, the mandates and the mandate holders of the Commission's Special Procedure of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection -- Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, as well as the procedure established in accordance with Economic and Social Council Resolution 1503 of 27 May 1970, as listed in the annex to the decision. The mandate holders are included in the annex. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Secretary. Does the main sponsor, Canada, wish to make a statement? Yes. I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Canada. CANADA: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. 43 member states, including Bulgaria, have now cosponsored this resolution on the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Since this Committee last adopted a resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran, there has been a continued deterioration in the government of Iran's performance in protecting the human rights and fundamental freedoms of its people. This should be the cause for serious concern for all members of the international community. In the resolution before you, every effort has been made to ensure a balanced and accurate text. Positive developments in 2006 have been sporadic, but where there have been some steps forward, the resolution recognizes and welcomes them. At the same time, however, the resolution underlines key concerns and calls on the government of Iran to hasten its progress toward greater realization of the protection and promotion of human rights for all Iranians. At this juncture, we believe that all avenues must be utilized to encourage positive change. The resolution before us today has an important role to play in this endeavor. Our profound hope is that by calling the world's attention to the situation of human rights in Iran, this resolution will promote and accelerate progress. Canada very much looks forward to the day when Iran's commitment to human rights and its willingness to abide by the obligations it has freely undertaken under international human rights instruments is such that this resolution will no longer be necessary. Until then, we strongly urge you to support this resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of canada. Does any other delegation wish to cosponsor Draft Resolution L.41? None. Does any delegation wish to make a statement in connection with the draft resolution? I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Switzerland. SWITZERLAND: Thank you, Mr. President. This year, the Third Committee is ceased with a range of resolutions on country situations. Switzerland and Lichtenstein would like to take this opportunity to make a general explanation of their position regarding these resolutions, including the one in front of us today. We are of the opinion that all these proposals must be considered on their merits, taking into account the overall human rights context in a particular country. Our strong preference continues to be for resolutions which can be adopted after negotiations with the countries concerned and with the broadest consensus possible and, where necessary, with a focus on technical assistance and capacity building. Such resolutions offer the best guarantee to strengthen national protection systems and to effectively contribute to the strengthening of human rights. We acknowledge the fact that the largest possible consensus is not always possible despite all efforts. We support those resolutions that concern situations where grave and systematic human rights violations are being committed, where national laws and institutions fail to protect against these violations, where the government fails to cooperate with the international community and does not respond in a satisfactory way to recommendations by the UN human rights mechanisms if such violations are in our view accurately described or referred to in the resolution. We have in mind situations where the government needs to take concrete and urgent measures to improve the situation of its citizens by putting into place structures to protect human rights and mechanisms to provide accountability for abuses. Where human rights violations happen in a context of armed conflict, resolutions should deal with violations accurately and in a balanced way, taking into account the respective responsibilities of all parties to a conflict under international humanitarian law and human rights law. We are against double standards. Our system of reference must be the international human rights law as agreed upon in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the broadly ratified conventions and additional protocols in this area. A different and differentiated appreciate of the advancement of human rights in countries under consideration is not a double standard. It is the application of the same standard to different situations and contexts. By increasing transparency, each country can contribute its share to the fight against double standards. The development of adequate tools for dealing with country situations decided by the General Assembly in its Resolution 60/251 is therefore a priority to us. We have consistently advocated for the creation of an effective universal periodic review mechanism within the Human Rights Council. We therefore welcome a gradual approach in dealing with country situations which include the possibility of convening special sessions of the Human Rights Council for dealing with serious human rights situations. We therefore firmly believe that duplication should be avoided within the UN, United Nations, for thematic as well as country-specific activities in crucial areas of human rights. In balancing all these reasons, and for the elements mentioned above, we will vote in favor of the resolution in front of us today. I thank you, Mr. President. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Switzerland. I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Morocco. MOROCCO: Thank you, Chairman. In fact, I'm not sure if I can make my statement at this stage of the debate. I'd just like to correct an error in the list of cosponsors of the Arabic version of this draft resolution. I'm referring here to L.41. Morocco is not a cosponsor of this resolution. Therefore, we'd like the name of Morocco to be removed from the Moroccan version of the draft resolution. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Morocco. The Secretariat will take note of that. Distinguished Delegates, I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Azerbaijan. AZERBAIJAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I take the floor to deliver a statement on behalf of the organization of the Islamic Conference. Mr. Chairman, the organization of the Islamic Conference has been consistently opposing the practice of submission of the resolutions on human rights situations in individual countries, which in no way contributes to the effective promotion and protection of human rights. The OIC strongly believes that human rights issues must be addressed through a constructive, dialogue-based approach with objectivity, impartiality, non-selectivity and transparency as key principles, and that exploitation of human rights for political purposes, including selective targeting of individual countries, should be excluded. Guided by these principles, the OIC opposes targeting specific countries by submitting country-specific resolutions and calls on the states tabling such drafts to reconsider their approach, as it has not been constructive in our joint efforts to promote and protect human rights, and has only contributed to further polarization and division among member states. The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has demonstrated its readiness to dialogue and cooperation in the promotion and protection of human rights by a number of actions, including extending an open invitation to all special procedures to visit the country, as well as engaging in a meaningful cooperation with the office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. The OIC therefore considers that introduction of the Draft Resolution on the Human Rights Situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran will not encourage further national efforts, but will rather escalate mistrust and challenge the capability and ultimately credibility of the international community to effectively address the protection and promotion of human rights. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Azerbaijan. I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Mexico. MEXICO: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My delegation deems it necessary to recall once again the main reasons that led us to take substantive -- substantive reform of the international system of human rights. They include a consolidation of human rights as one of the pillars of this organization, the need for greater balance in the consideration of human rights situations and the elimination of practices which, at an earlier date, undermined the credibility of the now defunct Commission on Human Rights. In this regard, Mexico reiterates in this initial year of work for the Human Rights Council that we states must adopt normative and constructive approaches in order to achieve our objectives. My delegation is therefore concerned that while we are working on consolidating the mechanisms required to promote and protect human rights and to deal with violations of these rights. At the same time, the traditional mechanisms and the inertia continues to persist, which just a few months ago we prepared ourselves to eliminate. One of the main contributions to be made by this Council is a comprehensive, periodic review based on objective and trustworthy information with regard to each state's compliance with its obligations and commitments in the area of human rights. While the establishment of this mechanism does not exclude the possibility of adopting resolutions on specific situations, we are concerned that there continues to be a trend to introduce resolutions which do not contribute to the effective protection of and cooperation in favor of human rights, but, as we have seen in some cases, represent clear reprisals. Moreover, we wish to reiterate the importance for effective coordination between the work and initiatives put forward in this commission and -- in this Committee and in the Human Rights Council. Otherwise, we will run the risk of watering down our efforts in both fora to the detriment of our efforts to promote human rights and to achieve the objectives we set for ourselves at the 2005 Summit. In the light of the foregoing, Mr. Chairman, during this session, Mexico will abstain from voting on this draft resolution and on the remaining drafts introduced under Item 67(C). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Mexico. I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Panama. PANAMA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is our view that a detailed description of human rights situations in given countries as well as recommendations for dealing with those situations are the work of the Human Rights Council. That is where these matters should be looked into. While the Council is still setting up its mechanisms for a comprehensive review, we should consider them on a case-by-case basis. However, there are cases where we are not fully convinced of the merits of considering a particular case. We wished to express our concern with the considerable number of these drafts on specific countries and human rights situations in those countries. This has led to an undue politicization of this theme, and we believe that these types of resolutions should no longer be considered. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Panama. Distinguished delegates, a recorded vote has been requested on Draft Resolution L.41. Before proceeding to the vote, I will first give the floor to any delegation wishing to make a general statement in connection with the draft resolution, and thereafter to any delegation wishing to make a statement and explanation of vote. Does any delegation wish to make a generals statement? [INAUDIBLE] I give -- I give the -- MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the motives of the voting. CHAIRMAN: The vote [INAUDIBLE] I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Sudan. SUDAN: [INAUDIBLE] an explanation of vote. CHAIRMAN: Does any delegation wish to make a general statement? Does any delegation wish to make a statement in explanation of vote before the vote? I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Sudan. SUDAN: Thank you, Chairman. We are facing a situation that is alarming and of considerable concern. It is a deeply regrettable situation because our leaders just one year ago met here and took the decision to establish the Human Rights Council to replace the Human Rights Commission, and they decided that the approach to human rights issues should be based on non-politicization and non -- and the absence of any double standards. For that reason, they brandish the slogan of dialogue and cooperation in order to achieve the ultimate objective, which is to promote and protect human rights. Therefore, today, just one year after that commitment was made by the world's leaders, we find ourselves at the very starting point. This is the regrettable result. It's a situation which is often criticized within this context. So what do these commitments mean that were taken by our leaders? What is the meaning behind the resolutions and decisions adopted by our leaders? Mr. Chairman, the Sudan, on the basis of its unfailing and clear position, which is to refuse country-specific resolutions since they are an instrument or means for settling old scores and can serve the interests of some countries, particularly the interest of countries which submit such resolutions, which have nothing to do with the protection and promotion of human rights. It's an irony of fate, Mr. Chairman, that the authors of these resolutions are themselves not innocent of human rights violations. If we look at the human rights issues in those countries, we will see the situation is not one to be proud of. So it's sufficient to follow the media rather -- not analyze the specific situation in these countries to see what the situation is there. We are living, Mr. Chairman, in a time when we're seeking to give a new impetus to the Human Rights Council's initiatives so that that Council can have the most effective instruments to achieve its objectives -- that is, the protection and promotion of human rights. However, we have not been ignoring what we agreed upon in the past, and now these regrettable practices are being engaged in, and this is a serious obstacle to our work. This is demonstrated by what we see here today with regard to this draft resolution on Iran, and this is despite the cooperation and the spirit of openness that was demonstrated by the Islamic Republic of Iran. It has sent invitations to all those individuals responsible for examining human rights issues for those individuals to visit the country to see what is happening on the ground. This has not prevented us from naming specific countries without taking account of all the efforts that have been made by the country concerned. The main concern of the sponsors of this resolution is defamation and to undermine the reputation of certain countries. Therefore, the countries that are targeted by such draft resolutions are developing countries and Muslim countries. Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons, the Delegation of Sudan will vote against this draft resolution. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Belarus. BELARUS: Thank you, Chairman. The Delegation of Belarus on many occasions has stated its position with regard to country-specific resolutions. We do not accept them either in their form nor in their content because of the politicized nature. Now we are particularly emphasizing the fact that the submission of this draft resolution on Iran is an unjustified measure. It clearly confirms the selective and biased approach by the sponsors of the draft resolution with regard to the situation in that country. The resolution targets -- is not aimed at concerns about human rights themselves, but the independent domestic policies of Iran. The main motive -- and the text clearly demonstrates this -- is to put pressure upon Iran because of the clear disagreement between the sponsors of the resolution with the independent conduct of Iran in the international arena. Iran is an independent, sovereign state with a long history and culture and traditions which is concerned about the prosperity and well-being of its own people. The criticisms of this country from the outside, which is not based on sincere feelings, and particularly this political pressure for imagined reasons, cannot bring any benefits. Mr. Chairman, for these and for other reasons, the statements which have been heard earlier here in the Third Committee, the Delegation of Belarus will vote against this Draft Resolution on the Situation with Regard to Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thank you, Chairman. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Belarus. Distinguished delegates, in view of the long list of speakers and the time -- I wish to limit the time for explanation of vote or general statements to three minutes. I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Egypt. EGYPT: Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, the delegation of Egypt would like to reiterate its position, its unchanging position with regard to voting. We vote against this sort of resolution, which are country-specific. And this we do independently of any objective aspects contained in these resolutions. And this we do for several reasons. First of all, this type of resolution is of a nature to enhance selectivity with regard to approaching human rights issues. They do not, therefore, allow us to deal with these issues in an objective way and in a sincere way and in the context of international cooperation, nor with a view to giving assistance to countries that require such assistance to promote human rights. Therefore, the over-politicization of human rights issues and this policy of threats are vain efforts to -- in dealing with human rights. The individual nature of these resolutions is -- goes against everything that is being achieved currently with regard to efforts to promote and protect human rights. Therefore, these issues should be dealt with through the periodic reviews that take place by the Human Rights Council, and every country is subject to these rules, to these reviews without exception. This is the umbrella that this body provides to examine in the best way how we can build upon human rights, and the Council is required to submit a report to the General Assembly to allow a debate on all the measures that need to be taken. Thirdly, when specific countries submit such draft resolutions every year within the Third Committee and at the same time, when these countries are voting in the Human Rights Council against resolutions dealing with violations of human rights that are taking place in Palestine and Lebanon, all this, allow me to say, Mr. Chairman, lead to us having doubts with regard to whether there is a real desire to protect human rights. And this -- this approach shows that there is no taking account of the cultural nature and specific customary practices that might prevail in one or other society. And this has led us to vote against such practices so that we can remedy in a radical way and change radically the way in which the international community deals with human rights issues. It's important that the examination of human rights issues be done on the basis of equality between all countries, large and small, strong powers and weaker powers. Therefore, Egypt will vote against this draft resolution dealing with the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Cuba. CUBA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This draft does not receive broad support based on the principles of the Charter, non-selectivity, equality, et cetera. We see that there is political motivation behind this draft, and therefore it is not legitimate. As has been explained, this draft is not based on a genuine aspiration to support human rights. On the contrary, it represents double standards and politicization of an issue. Of course, there is an effort to instill a new spirit in dealing with human rights situations, and that led to the establishment of the Human Rights Council. We have heard a number of delegations who are sponsoring this draft speak of new and immediate support in the Council, the establishment of mechanisms which will put an end to selectivity and support impartiality. But this draft resolution, Mr. Chairman, does not reflect that. On the contrary, for all of these reasons, the Delegation of Cuba will vote against this draft resolution. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Cuba. I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Zimbabwe. The floor is yours, sir. ZIMBABWE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we all know that resolutions such as the one contained in Document L.41 do not advance the human rights agenda. Instead, they undermine it through unwarranted politicization of the issues. This, we believe, is the considered view of this community of nations. Why do we say so? Because General Assembly Resolution 60/251 underlines the primacy of dialogue and cooperation in dealing with issues of human rights. Preamble Paragraph 10 of that recently adopted resolution reads, and I quote, Recognizing further that the promotion and protection of human rights should be based on the principle of cooperation and genuine dialogue and aimed at strengthening the capacity of member states to comply with their human rights obligations for the benefit of all human rights. Operative Paragraph 4 of the same resolution also stresses the importance of the same principle. And I quote, decides further that the work of the Council shall be guided by the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, constructive international dialogue and cooperation, with a view to enhancing the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. Question: Are the sponsors of Draft Resolution L.41 aware of the importance of constructive international dialogue and cooperation? We believe they are. We recall that they actively participated in the negotiations of Resolution 60/251 and did not oppose the paragraphs just quoted. Our understanding is that the resolution set the tone for a new approach to human rights issues, not just in the new Human Rights Council, but also in all other bodies, including this Third Committee. Now, what do we make of the draft before us? Clearly, the sponsors of this draft know that this is not the way to promote respect for human rights. The motivation for the draft must therefore lie in an area that is not the proper domain of this Committee. We find it unacceptable that delegations seek to abuse the human rights agenda for other purposes. At any rate, if this was about human rights, we would expect the sponsors of this document to seriously examine themselves before pointing fingers at others. Some of them have been forced to make admissions of wrongdoing that they now believe license them to name and shame countries with whom they have difficult relations. Others choose to remain silent about their well-known violations and continue to play saint. When are we going to see these human rights monitors tabling resolutions on violations by many among them? We reckon it will not be soon. We have heard delegations attempting to justify these resolutions by alleging that the targeted countries had not demonstrated a commitment to genuine dialogue. Given the political motivations behind these drafts, we find it difficult to accept that the sponsors are themselves committed to genuine dialogue on human rights. We also believe that genuine dialogue does not begin with one delegation or a group of delegations. Sorry. With one delegation or a group of delegations waving a condemnatory piece of paper at a delegation a few days before the end of the program of work of the Third Committee. For these reasons, my delegation will vote against L.41. I thank you. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Zimbabwe. I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of China. CHINA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, GA Resolution 60/251 underlines the need in the process of promoting and protection of human rights to respect the historical, cultural and religious background of different countries and to promote dialogue and cooperation among countries on an equal footing and among countries with different systems, social systems and ideology on equal footing. China maintains that differences on human rights issues should be solved through dialogue and cooperation. China is opposed to any country-specific resolution. The Chinese delegation believes that the Draft Resolution L.41 is tabled not out of any genuine interest in the human rights of the Iranian people but to serve heavily political purposes. This draft resolution will in no way contribute to the protection of human rights. In view of the above, the Chinese delegation will vote against the Draft Resolution L.41. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of China. I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Myanmar. MYANMAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the recent years, we have witnessed increasing incidence of misusing the Third Committee of the General Assembly by powerful states to put pressure on developing countries for political reasons. These measures do not promote the cause of human rights, but instead, by causing mistrust and confrontation, diminishes the cause of human rights that all of us hold dear. The Draft Resolution L.41 on the Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran is a clear example of politicizing human rights. It is conduct of foreign policy by other means. The promotion and protection of human rights should be based on the principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue and aimed at strengthening the capacity of member states to comply with their human rights obligations for the benefit of all human beings. Country-specific, politically motivated resolutions will not serve this purpose. With the establishment of the Human Rights Council as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, the logical forum for consideration of human rights issues should be in the Human Rights Council. We should avoid duplication with the work of the Third Committee. Additionally, Myanmar, as a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement, fully subscribes to the principled opposition of the movement, reemphasized in the recent Havana Summit by our heads of states or government, I quote, that The exploitations of human rights for political purposes, including selective targeting of individual countries for extraneous considerations, which is contrary to the founding principles of the Movement and the Charter, should be prohibited, unquote. For these reasons, my delegation will vote against this Draft Resolution L.41. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Myanmar. I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic. SYRIA: [INAUDIBLE] Chairman. Allow me, first of all, to clarify my country's position. We refuse politicization, selectivity and dual standards and the exploitation of human rights to serve political interests with the main aim of involvement in internal affairs and non-respect of national sovereignty. For that reason, my country's delegation will vote against the draft resolution. Thank you, Chairman. CHAIRMAN: [INAUDIBLE] floor to the Distinguished Representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. VENEZUELA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well as the speaker in Arabic. Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to this draft resolution. Some well-known violators of human rights are among the cosponsors. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela wishes to reiterate its disagreement with the practice of introducing these types of resolutions considering human rights situations in specific countries through a rather selective and politicized approach, in contravention of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter to respect the sovereignty of states and noninterference in the internal affairs of states. In this regard, we support the statement read out by the Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement today. Mr. Chairman, in practice selectivity and politicization of the human rights issue has affected and will continue to affect in the worst possible way the real or potential victims of human rights violations. These individuals have become peons or instruments for political interests and strategic confrontation. My delegation has noted with growing concern the erosion of credibility in these initiatives aimed at progress and aimed at protecting human rights. The lack of credibility has led to the ineffectiveness of this instrument, and has also led to impunity. There continues to be unilateralism, despite the end of the Cold War. Mr. Chairman, those who fight for human rights are being replaced by human rights bureaucrats, and diplomats are being replaced by political activists who have real or imagined adversaries. Governments are usurping the role to be played by political organizations and nonofficial social organizations. These have been replaced by the threat of force and by propaganda. Major violators of human rights and humanitarian law have become accusers, along with their supporters, with impunity. These are sufficient reasons to vote as a matter of principle against any draft resolution enshrining this unwelcome, inconsistent and undue practice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. FEMALE SPEAKER: I thank the Delegate of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. [APPLAUSE] CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Uzbekistan. The floor is yours, sir. UZBEKISTAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My delegation strongly opposes the practice of politicization, double standards and selectivity in dealing with human rights issues. We are also against the exploitation of a human rights agenda by some countries for the sake of their political interests. It is our firm conviction that country-specific resolutions only contribute to further politicization of work of the Third Committee and only damage the international cooperation in the field of human rights. In our view, the draft resolution before us is highly politically motivated and biased, and has nothing to do with the real situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In view of that, and as a matter of principle, my delegation will vote against this draft resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Uzbekistan. I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Barbados. BARBADOS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my delegation had hoped that the recent establishment of the Human Rights Council would usher in a new era in human rights, one of dialogue, cooperation, non-selectivity, non-politicization and a real concern for human rights. The events of the past few weeks have obviously made it clear that these hopes were unfounded. Mr. Chairman, last year my delegation made a very similar statement to the Third Committee, and it saddens us again that we also once again have to speak to this issue. As a country with a paradoxical history of slavery and colonialism, having existed alongside a tradition of parliamentary democracy going back over 300 years, Barbados attaches the highest importance to the issue of human rights and democracy, both in our domestic and our foreign policy. As such, we are deeply concerned that the highly political and divisive nature of the human rights debate in the Third Committee, and particularly the debate concerning the tabling of country-specific resolutions, we believe that the specific targeting of certain countries is not helpful or productive, especially as all of our countries continue to strive to achieve an unblemished record for human rights under governance. Barbados's principled and consistent position on this issue has lead us to either abstain on the country-specific resolutions or to support no action motions. Mr. Chairman, however, I must emphasize here that our voting on these resolutions should not be misconstrued as a lack of concern for human rights. Indeed, the opposite can only be true. Our position on voting has been based on the principle of not singling out certain countries, rather than on the human rights situations in specific states. Barbados is gravely concerned about the pattern of human rights abuses in many parts of the world and urges all states to cooperate and to engage in dialogue to address these issues. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Barbados. I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Arab -- Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. LIBYA: Thank you, Chairman. We respect the position of the Non-Aligned Movement. This was reaffirmed in Havana at the International Summit. And we are opposed to these resolutions which target some countries. We also respect the principles which were at the basis of the creation of the Human Rights Council and on the basis of Libya's experience with regard to also the experience of the former Human Rights Commission, which showed that such resolutions not beneficial. And for that reason, my delegation will vote against this draft resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Representative of the Arab Jamahiriya of Libya. I now give the floor to the Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. You have the floor, madam. IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my intention is to heed your advice and confine my statement to the time limit you proposed. However, since the draft resolution is directly concerning my country, I seek your indulgence to permit me to read my statement and to pronounce our position in a full and clear manner. [INAUDIBLE] Mr. Chairman, the Draft Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran is unwarrantedly, once again, on the agenda of the Third Committee. As it was the case in the past, the present draft is also another politically motivated exercise pursued by the government of Canada to serve its narrow political purposes and interests. The move we are dealing with today brings once again to light the unfortunate fact that the UN human rights mechanisms have constantly been abused and manipulated to address political interests of a few. The few that audaciously and persistently arrogate to themselves the exclusive ownership of the process of human rights protection within the UN system. Indeed, it demonstrates how human rights considerations are clearly subjugated to and tainted by political considerations at the expense of credibility and integrity of the UN human rights machinery. This bitter fact was underlined by the Secretary-General when he, in the course of UN reform deliberations, noted that the integrity of the Human Rights Commission had been questioned because of the fact that some who invoked human rights principles had failed to uphold in practice the venerable principles that they were preaching. Mr. Chairman, in principle, Iran does not oppose the human rights scrutiny of UN member states by the UN relevant parties. During the discussions on the UN reform, my delegation wholeheartedly supported the recommendation of the high-level panel to have an annual report on the situation of human rights worldwide. We believe that proposal deserved to be accepted and implemented unreservedly if we were serious to have promotion and protection of human rights globally. Nonetheless, those few who I have just referred to put up strong objection to adopt such a useful recommendation that meant to treat all countries equally in the domain of human rights. We wonder if any member of this world body could claim that the situation of human rights within its territory should be beyond the international scrutiny. A pertinent question therefore arises as whether the present system permits a worldwide scrutiny. The answer is terribly discouraging and disturbing. It is an undeniable fact that the present system of human rights monitoring is selective, arbitrary, partial and unproductive. As a result, it is no wonder that under such a system Canada, with a questionable human rights record on many aspects of human rights, particularly on the rights of indigenous peoples and immigrants, and also known as a relentless supporter of the Israeli regime's crimes against the Palestinians, assumes itself to be in a position to table a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in my country. Various reports of the Human Rights Council bear testimony to the fact that Canada and other sponsors of this draft resolution are themselves implicated in serious human rights violations for which they must be held accountable, including discrimination against immigrants in Europe, the United States and Canada; the gross violation of human rights and international humanitarian law by the U.S. under the pretext of war on terrorism; the extraction of information through torture by some sponsors of this draft, the establishment of secret detention centers in various parts of the world, especially in Europe; the long pretrial detention of suspects in various Western countries are but a few examples among many others that figure notably on the long list of rights violations by the sponsors of this draft resolution. No one can deny that the serious increase in Islamophobia and defamation of Islam and Islamic values in the Western world have seriously violated the basic rights of the Muslim populations in those countries. In reality, the claim by Canada and its partners on human rights advocacy has proven to be a pure myth, as they have, on numerous occasions, put on display their fully political approach to human rights issues. It is worth mentioning that the sponsors of the draft resolution before this Committee today are mostly those who have repeatedly ignored and even supported the gross violation of the most basic human rights of the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples by the Israeli regime. These so-called claimants of human rights chose to vote against three draft resolutions on Israeli atrocities committed against the Palestinian and Lebanese people in three consecutive Special Sessions of the Human Rights Council recently. Moreover, and as the latest example in this regard, Canada and some other cosponsors of this draft resolution that hypocritically cry wolf about the situation of human rights in Iran are the same parties who last Friday stood against the will of the 156 members of this august organization and opposed a resolution dealing with horrendous crimes perpetrated by the Israeli regime against the defenseless Palestinian people. This has yet again brought to light the true nature and hidden agenda of some -- or such countries' approach to human rights issues, which obviously amounts to making a mockery of human rights itself, as well as the whole international human rights machinery. It is also ironic that the Israeli regime with an appalling and unspeakable record of war crimes and systematic violation of human rights that only recently massacred more than 100 innocent Palestinians in cold blood, is among the cosponsors of the draft. This alone is telling enough, and adequately self-explaining that how ill-intended, deceitful and preposterous this politically motivated move by Canada is. Mr. Chairman, the Draft Resolution L.41 consists of baseless accusations and unfounded claims. The situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran that this draft purports to describe is predictable -- is predicated only on its sponsors' illusions and fantasies, thus lacking any connection with the reality on the ground. It contains general references, alleged violations which are a repetition of previous, similar resolutions. In certain parts of the draft, reference has been made to isolated cases that may occur in any society, but provide no justifications for such an unfair approach. All in all, the draft is an accusatory paper geared to launching political propaganda to serve Canada and other sponsors' political purposes, either relating to their domestic policies or in line with their illegitimate and ulterior foreign policy goals. Yet, we should remind them that -- all that the policy of defamation and distortion of facts directed against the Islamic Republic of Iran has thus far led to nowhere. Long years of practicing this policy should have taught its initiators and its sponsors important lessons, that Iran will not submit to pressure, intimidation and defamation. The Islamic Republic of Iran on the basis of Islamic values and its international obligations has always been fully committed to respect the dignity of all human beings and has made serious and genuine efforts to protect and promote human rights at the national and international levels. Iran is a dynamic and progressive society. The government and people of Iran are determined to realize a society based on social justice, democracy and good governance. We are committed to ensure and enhance the participation of all people in social and political life as our constitution requires. Mr. Chairman, we believe that the best approach to promote and protect human rights across the globe is to engage in a meaningful and sincere cooperation. Politicization, double standard, partiality and selectivity lead to confrontation. We have always stressed that cooperation, mutual understanding and respect should lie at the heart of interactions on human rights and enable member states to use the existing mechanisms to effectively promote and protect human rights worldwide. On such a basis, we have held four rounds of human rights dialogue with the EU, with the European Union, since 2002. Both sides have decided to resume these talks later in December this year. The focus of these dialogues is on human rights concerns in both Iran and the EU member states equally. Besides, Iran has always -- has also been engaged in bilateral human rights dialogues with some other countries and has constantly expressed its openness and resolve to hold such dialogues and interaction with others who may wish to do so. Nevertheless, the adoption of this unwarranted, politically motivated draft resolution could only create a situation which would diminish prospects for cooperation and understanding in the field of human rights in the future, including the current dialogue with the European Union. We have a strong preference for dialogue and cooperation, and as I said earlier, possibilities for dialogue already exist, but resolutions as a mechanism for confrontation can only impede them. Moreover, the adoption of this draft resolution will put at risk Iran's other international cooperation in the field of human rights, including the present cooperation with the UN human rights mechanism. Sadly, it has become evident that Iran's good intention to cooperate with the Special Procedure of the Office of High Commissioner not only has been negatively responded by the so-called claimants of human rights, but has also been misused in projecting the situation of human rights in Iran. That may, in turn, lead us to reconsider the standing invitation that Iran has extended to the Thematic Rapporteurs since 2002. Finally, Mr. Chairman, as I explained, the Canadian draft resolution against Iran solely seeks political interests and goals that its sponsors pursue. It certainly lacks credibility and fairness as far as our human rights situation is concern. It thus immensely undermines the goals of the UN in the area of human rights. In view of these considerations, and in order to preserve the dignity, credibility and legitimacy of the UN human rights mechanisms, I hope the members of the Third Committee choose the right path by saying no to the Draft Resolution L.41. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We shall now proceed to the recorded vote on the Draft Resolution L.41. All delegations wishing to vote in favor of the draft resolution, please press the green button. Those against please press the red one. And those abstaining, please press the yellow one. Have all delegations voted? Are all votes correctly reflected on the board? Please lock the machine. The result of the vote is as follows: In favor, 70. Against, 48. Abstaining, 55. The draft resolution containing Document L.41 is adopted. Does any delegation wish to make a statement in explanation of vote after the vote? I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Costa Rica. COSTA RICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we said last Friday, my delegation abstained in voting on this resolution, and we will abstain on voting on any resolution dealing with country-specific violations of human rights. Heeding your request with regard to time when taking the floor, my delegation reiterates what we said on the 17th, last Friday. We believe that all of these country-specific resolutions should be dealt with by the Human Rights Council set up for that purpose. To deal with the question of substance today, we make an appeal to the Republic of Iran to deal with all questions of human rights and to work very closely with the Human Rights Council. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Costa Rica. I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Algeria. ALGERIA: Thank you, Chairman. My delegation voted against draft resolution L.41 on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and will vote against all country-specific resolutions because it considers that country-specific resolutions maintain a climate of confrontation which is harmful to the cause of human rights. My delegation considers that only a cooperative approach based on genuine dialogue can promote human rights in the affected countries. This same dialogue must, in the view of my delegation, be at the basis of the working methods of the periodic universal review carried out by the Human Rights Council, which, my delegation believes, is the appropriate mechanism for assisting countries, all countries, without exception, in improving the human rights situation. Thank -- CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Algeria. May I urge all delegations to keep quiet in this room, because we need to listen to the delegation, please. I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Brazil. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. President. As was stated on several occasions, Brazil favors the implementation of the universal periodic review mechanism, which will allow the United Nations to examine in a truly universal manner the situation of human rights in all countries of the world, free from selectivity and politicization. We are of the view that country-specific resolutions should be adopted only in cases of such gravity that merit the particular attention of the international community. Brazil, in this like, has once again abstained on the vote of the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is the only country in its region that has extended a standing invitation to the United Nations Special Procedures. It is involved in technical cooperation in human rights with several United Nations agencies and maintains bilateral dialogue on human rights issues with numerous countries. We remain, however, concerned with the situation regarding freedom of expression and opinion, violence and discrimination against women and the imposition of cruel sentences and treatment. Information on the continued application of the death penalty to persons under the age of 18 is particularly disquieting. Brazil remains seriously concerned, as well, with the situation of broad discrimination against the Bahai community, including the non-recognition of Bahai as a religion, arbitrary detentions, imprisonment based on matters of conscience, restriction of the right to work and education of its members, as well as the destruction of its cultural legacy. We hope that the Iranian government in the context of its standing invitation of the Human Rights Council with Special Procedures can promptly receive the visit of the Special Rapporteur of Freedom of Belief and Religion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Brazil. Does any delegation wish to make a general statement? I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Finland. FINLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union. The European Union is heartened by the fact that the Third Committee has decided to adopt the Draft resolution A/C.3/61/L.41, titled The Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. We are convinced that the international community cannot remain silent in situations where human rights violations are continuous, grave and widespread and the countries in question do not demonstrate any willingness to address the situations or to engage in meaningful dialogue. All countries, all countries, large or small, should be held accountable for fulfilling their obligations. The situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran meets these criteria. The European Union shares the deep concern of other delegations regarding the continuing serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Islamic Republic of Iran and strongly believes that the situation needs to be addressed by the General Assembly. The Draft Resolution L.41 builds on previous resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. The text welcomes the positive steps that the Islamic Republic of Iran has taken in the recent past towards meeting its human rights obligations. However, it also draws attention to the persistence of grave and systematic human rights violations, such as the use of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including public executions and the issuing of sentences of stoning, as well as discrimination against women and ethnic and religious minorities, discrimination that has at times appeared in the form of violent crackdowns. The European Union is also concerned about the situation in Iran with regards to continued discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We urge Iran to abide by its principles to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of all its citizens, regardless of sex, gender, religion, ethnicity, belief and sexual orientation. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to addressing the human rights situations in individual countries, constructive dialogue is what we all seek. The European Union hopes that the adoption of this draft resolution and the implementation of the recommendations contained therein will open new avenues for cooperation and will contribute to the human rights and fundamental freedoms by all Iranians. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Finland. I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Costa Rica, and I urge him to be brief. Thank you. COSTA RICA: Mr. Chairman, I guarantee you that I also want to go eat lunch. Mr. Chairman, my delegation wishes to make a general statement with regard to the procedural debate which we had when we began consideration of this item. We did not do it earlier because of the order, but given the importance of the substantive matter we're dealing with, where our position is quite clear and has been repeated, we did not make the statement earlier because we wished to avoid any misunderstanding. Mr. Chairman, my delegation regrets the fact that in open contradiction with the provisions of Articles 61 and 35 of the General Assembly Rules of Procedure, a very inconstructive action has been allowed to take place. 35 years ago the General Assembly adopted the conclusions of the Special Committee to Rationalize the Work of the General Assembly, and it was stated there that primarily -- and I'm quoting here -- a point of order is a statement directed to the Chairman -- I repeat, to the Chairman -- to request that he clarify the rules of procedure or that he carry out a specific action as Chairman. Points of order have never been used as a mechanism to prevent statements being made by other delegations in this organization. Mr. Chairman, Article 61, in accordance with Article 35 I referred to earlier, states clearly that once a point of order is made, the Chairman, and not the Secretary, will decide immediately -- and I reiterate immediately, and I am quoting from the text with regard to the rules. This is not what we saw take place this morning. And my delegation wishes formally to record its concern with this. Costa Rica hopes that when points of order are raised in the future, the Chairman, as well as the Secretary, will consider the normal practice in this regard and will act in accordance with it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Costa Rica. I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Finland. FINLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank those delegations that have shared our concern with the earlier procedural issues. That is something that my delegation and the delegations on behalf of whom I'm speaking would sincerely wish to avoid in the future. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence and the indulgence of the Committee, I would now like to continue the statement I was delivering earlier today before interrupted by other delegations taking the floor. Mr. Chairman, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union. As a matter of principle, the European Union will vote against any motion to close the debate on an item under discussion in the Third Committee. The calling of such a motion aims at denying the member states of the United Nations their sovereign right to bring before the General Assembly any concern which they themselves deem to merit its attention, and limiting the agenda of the General Assembly -- in this case, the Third Committee -- only to issues chosen by some of us. During this session of the General Assembly, many delegations have repeatedly stressed the particular authority of this committee to consider all human rights issues since it is the only such body in the United Nations system that has universal membership. If successful, motions to adjourn the debate limit that authority by preventing us from even considering the concerns of the international community. When it comes to addressing the human rights situations in individual countries, constructive dialogue is what we all seek. However, such a dialogue is only possible when governments are genuinely committed to removing obstacles to the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The General Assembly would undermine its own credibility if it remains silent on grave and widespread violations of human rights in situations where the country concerned refuses to cooperate in any meaningful matter with the United Nations human rights system. As I stated earlier, no country, large or small, can be regarded as being beyond or above consideration by international human rights fora. This would run counter to the principles of universality and interdependence of all human rights and betray the victims. No one who is truly opposed to selectivity and double standards can support such an approach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Finland. Distinguished delegates, what happened this morning, that I gave the floor to the Secretary to announce or to make it clear what the Rules of Procedures was. Therefore, it was my decision, and the Secretary did what he was supposed to do. Therefore, we have concluded our work for today, and before adjourning the meeting, I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee. SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I've been requested to make the following announcements: Informals under Agenda Item 118, Program Planning, will be held at 4 p.m. in this room. This afternoon at 4 p.m. There will be also a meeting of the Group of 77 in the Delegates' Lounge at 1:15 -- well, upon adjournment of this meeting -- on the draft resolution on the followup to the Durban Declaration and Program of Action. And finally, the African Group will meet in this room briefly upon the adjournment of this meeting. Mr. Chairman, as you had mentioned, the Committee has concluded its work for today, and therefore this afternoon's meeting is canceled. The Committee will thus resume it's proceeding tomorrow morning at 10:00. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The meeting is adjourned. [END]