STATEMENT BY THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF ITALY TO THE UNITED NATIONS

AMBASSADOR F.PAOLO FULCI

ON SUB-ITEM 100 (E):

"CAPITAL PUNISHMENT"

TO THE THIRD COMMITTEE OF THE 49TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Mr. Chairman,

First of all, I want to thank the additional co-sponsors of the draft resolution contained in document a/c.3/49/1.32, that is to say: Argentina, Bolivia, Cyprus, El Salvador, Germany, Micronesia, New Zealand, Dominican Republic, Solomon Islands, Sao Tome and Principe, and Venezuela. This makes a total of 49 Countries that have co-sponsored the draft resolution.

My delegation would like to express its opposition to the no-action motion that was just presented. It was our sincere hope that this Committee would have been able to cast its vote on the draft resolution without becoming engaged in procedural maneuvers. For our part, we have tried constantly to avoid them. However, since some have decided differently, we are obliged to stress the reasons why we oppose this no-action motion, and invite delegations to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman,

First of all, it must be remembered that what the motion is calling for is the fifth procedural vote on sub-item 100 (e) concerning the issue of capital punishment. In the past few weeks, there have already been two procedural votes in the General Committee, and two procedural votes in the Plenary of the G.A..

A repeated attempt was made to prevent this G.A. from even discussing the item. What the no-action motion is trying for in reality is to kill the draft resolution, without giving delegations the chance to express their positions on the document.

Now, if the motion succeeds, it would set a negative precedent indeed. In fact, the original request for inclusion of the item was signed by 34 Countries, belonging to all regional groups. The draft resolution in front of us is co-sponsored by almost fifty Countries, again from all regions of the world. Should we then conclude that these numbers are not sufficient to allow the G.A. to decide on a proposal one way or the other? Should we conclude that in order to make sure that action is taken on a draft resolution, the resolution needs to be presented by the majority of the Members of the U.N.? Frankly, such a conclusion would hardly be consistent with the spirit of the U.N. Charter.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, it remains our strong view that recourse to the no-action motion should not be made in the context of the works of the Third Committee. Human rights questions are of such fundamental, vital importance that artificial hurdles to the debate cannot be justified. It is especially in the highly sensitive area of human right that the rules of procedure of the General Assembly are not meant to be used as devices to stop or delay the decision-making process.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we all realize that the issue of capital punishment is controversial and divisive. This is why our contribution has taken the form of a balanced, mild and non-intrusive draft resolution. If the no-action motion on such a mild document succeeds, there will be a strong demand from a large sector of world public opinion to re-open the debate at the next G.A. and in the years to come. It would then be impossible to argue that a period of further reflection is needed. The net result would probably be to mahe the debate more difficult and confrontational. On our part, we do not advocate this result and we hope that this conviction is shared by the mayority in this room.

These are the main reasons, Mr. Chairman, why my delegation opposes the no-action motion. We therefore urge all delegations to vote against the motion by pressing the red button, I repeat the red button.