To introduce Draft Resolution A/C.3/49/L.32:

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

New York, December 1, 1994

Mr. Chairman,

Etant donné que je prends la parole pour la première fois à la Troisième Commission, je voudrais saisir cette occasion pour rendre hommage aux qualités professionnelles, à l'équilibre, à l'efficacité et à l'autorité du President, l'Ambassadeur Cissé du Sénégal. Qualités qui font de lui un des ambassadeurs les plus respectés aux Nations Unies. Son role de Président de cette Commission, à laquelle il est demandé de réealiser des taches parmi les plus délicates de notre Organisation, constitue la meilleure garantie pour tous les Pays qui y prennent part.

On behalf of the Italian Government I wish to introduce the draft resolution contained in document A/C.3/49/L.32.

The 38 co-sponsors listed in the document were later joined by four more Countries: Bolivia, Germany, Micronesia and Venezuela. As a result, the total number of co-sponsors now amounts to 42 Countries from every regional group. Moreover, the signatures of 12 other States are pending.

A first draft of the resolution was annexed to document A/49/234, by which 34 Member States requested the addition to the General Assembly agenda of the item "Capital Punishment". The new draft tabled on November 28 is a revised edition of the original text. As promised during the discussion in the General Committee, substantial amendments have been introduced on the basis of suggestions advanced by some countries and of the statements made in the general debate on sub-item 100 (e).

Mr. Chairman,

In asking that the problem of capital punishment be discussed in the present session of the General Assembly, the States that have supported this initiative do not harbor any intention of imposing their views on other Countries.

The draft resolution fully respects the sovereign right of every State to choose, in its system of criminal law, the punishments it deems most appropriate. As we have stated before, the abolition of the death penalty can only come about by means of a voluntary process, throgh an autonomous decision by individual countries to freely amend their laws, or to agree to international rules such as the second optional protocol. Our resolution is simply meant to inject some humanitarian concerns into the system with regard to capital punishment, such as the execution of pregnant women, minors, and the insane, as well as a limited moratorium for a period of a few years during which one could give greater account to possible human errors before applying an extreme and irreversible punishment.

This is why we took such care in narrowing the scope of the resolution and in using a moderate language. It is hardly our intention to add fuel to the fire. But we felt it was our duty to speak our minds on some aspects of the death penalty that many of us in this room consider particularly abhorrent. In other words, we have tried to reach a minimun common denominator that responds to the consciences of the overwhelming majority of nations and peoples.

For this reason we believe that the draft, in its final text, is welle balanced and deserves supports.

The positive vote in the General Committee and in the Plenary is the most concrete evidence that most member States wish to keep open a venue for the comparison of different interpretations, ideas and philosophies.

Therefore we hope that delegations that have already announced their intention to vote against the draft resolution might reconsider their position after a new, thorough examination of the text submitted to the Committee.

Mr. Chairman,

We have heard that after 4 procedural votes - 2 in the General Committee and 2 in the plenary of the General Assembly - another attempt is underway to block a vote on the Draft Resolution. A "no action motion" is apparently being pursued by some Member States. At times it is even presented as a face-saving device that might allow some Countries to avoid pronouncing themselves on the draft resolution.

Let's be honest. A vote in favor of the no action motion would be a vote to kill the resolution, and would be perceived as such by national and international public opinion.

The resolution before you is open, balanced, and mild. Now it is only fair that each Country shoulder its responsibilities, cast aside further delaying tactics, and vote its conscience.