Draft Resolution on Capital Punishment rejected by Third Committee

Following recorded votes on an amendment and a procedural motion, and the withdrawal of all of its co-sponsors, a draft resolution that would invite restrictions on the use of capital punishment was rejected by a vote of 36 in favour to 44 against, with 74 abstensions in the Third Committee this afternoon.

The amendment introduced by the representative of Singapore proposed to replace the text's preambular paragraph reaffirming the sovereign right of States to determine, inaccordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, the legal measures and penalties which are appropriate to deal with the most serious crimes, with the following: "Affirming the sovereign right of States to determine the legal measures and penalties which are appropriate in thier societies to combat serious crimes effectively".

After the adoption of that amendment, by a vote of 71 in favour to 65 against, with 21 abstentions, all 50 co-sponsors of the original draft resolution withdrew their co-sponsorship.

The representative of Egypt then proposed that no action be taken on the draft as a whole, which he said "had no parentage". The no-action motion was defeated by a vote of 60 in favour to 71 against, with 23 abstensions.

Those expressing support for Singapore's amendment stressed the importance of State sovereignty, while those opposing it, including the co-sponsors, said that the original text's reference to international law and the United Nations Charter did not contradict the principle of State sovereignty. Citing the complexity of the issue, some representatives proposed that the matter be dealt with under the Committee's agenda item on crime prevention and criminal justice, or that it be dealt with by the Sixth Committee (Legal) of the General Assembly.

****************************

Dopo gli interventi degli ambasciatori italiano e singaporese (già inseriti integralmente in questa conferenza) il dibattito si è articolato come segue:

Juli Minoves Triquell (Andorra) said the co-sponsors of the draft had demontrated flexibility and a willingness to accomodate everyone's concerns. He would vote against Singapore's amendment because, although he agreed that respect should be given to the sovereignty of States, international law should also be respected. All States should vote in favour of the revised draft resolution and reject the Singapore's amendament.

Joseph Casser (Malta) said he would vote against the amendment. The co-sponsors of the draft resolution had been willing to take into account the concerns expressed. In the exercise of their sovereign rights, States must also act in accordance with international law, including the United Nations Charter. Most Countries would like all States to exercise their sovereign rights in accordance with international law. It was puzzling as to why there were objections to such language. The draft could in no way be viewed as infringing on the sovereignty of States.

Christian Much (Germany) said he opposed the amendment. Germany's respect for the rights of sovereign States was beyond doubt and was clearly articulated in the revised draft resolution. The amendment would significanly alter the draft, because it would indicate that in the future the standard to determine the legitimacy of a legal measure or penalty would involve only its application in a single society. That should not be the case, since there were further standards by which to measure penalties. Penalties should not be cruel, inhuman or degrading. International provisions could not be the standard of a single State. Were that to be the case, if one country considered torture to be appropriate, the international community would have to accept that practice. Clearly, such a practice would be very dangerous.

Nabil Elaraby (Egypt) said his country was not a co-sponsor of Singapore's amendment, but he would vote in favour of it. His Government believed a cause of action could not be imposed on any State that directly affected its sovereignty. Any resolution should take into consideration the values of each country and the question of due process was important. The correct application of justice through due process was essential, since due process ensured that justice was being applied. Furthermore, everything must be in accordance with the Charter.

The amendment proposed by Singapore was then put to a vote. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 71 in favour to 65 against, with 21 abstensions.

The following countries then withdrew co-sponsorship of the draft resolution: Germany, Greece, Belgium, Monaco, France, Finland, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Malta, Australia, Austria, El Salvador, San Marino, Sweden, Argentina, Ecuador, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Portugal, Paraguay, Denmark, Andorra, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Italy, Costarica, Spain, Romania, Solomon Islands, Ireland, Chile, Venezuela, Vanuate, Hungary, Cape Verde, Honduras, Uruguay, Canada, Cambodia, Norway and Bolivia.

Mr. Chew (Singapore), noting that all co-sponsors had withdrawn their co-sponsorship of the draft, said "there is no resolution, it need not be voted on".

Mr. Biggar (Ireland) said a draft could only be withdrawn before it has been amended.

Mr. Fulci (Italy) supported the statement just made by the representative of Ireland.

The Chairman, Keba Birane Cisse (Senegal), concurred with that assessment.

The Committee then took up the amendment proposed by Egypt, which proposes changing "urges" to "encourages" in the second operative paragraph.

Mr. Elarby (Egypt) said his country would not insist on a vote on that amendment.

The Chairman said the draft resolution as a whole would then be put to a vote.

Khalil Abou-Hadid (Syria) asked which States remained as co-sponsors of the draft resolution.

The Chairman then asked any remaining co-sponsors to raise their plates. No plates were raised.

Kate Starr Newell, the Secretary, read a legal opinion of 25 November 1987 that stated the underlying idea of rule 122 was that an amended proposal was no longer the exclusive property of its original sponsors and could, therefore, no longer be withdrawn by them. The sponsors maintained their freedom of action until such time as a voting machine was turned on. They could withdraw their names as sponsors and an amended draft resolution could, theoretically, be without sponsors.

The draft resolution as a whole was then put to the vote.

Mr. Fulci (Italy) said that before a vote was taken on Singapore's amendment, he had made clear why such an amendment was unacceptable to all co-sponsors. It had been thought that the revised text would have satisfied the concerns of States concerning sovereignty. Since the Committee had decided otherwise, the co-sponsors had been compelled to withdraw their co-sponsorship. Nevertheless, the draft resolution still contained many positive elements, especially its provisions concerning the moratorium. "Even if we cannot fully associate ourselves with the draft resolution, it would still be an important step, as it would declare that execution of pregnant women, minors and insane people is really abhorrent". Italy would vote in favour of the draft.

Mr. Chew (Singapore) speaking on a point of order asked if the draft had been put to a vote.

The Chairman said he was preparing to make that announcement.

Mr. Elarby (Egypt) said the resolution had no parentage. There was no one willing to stand up for it. He moved that no action be taken on the draft resolution.

The Chairman said that under the Rules of Procedure, two representatives should speak in favour of the motion and two against.

Abdulrahman Al-Rassi (Saudi Arabia) said he supported the motion just made by Egypt.

Corinne Tomkinson (Australia) said she supported the motion made by Egypt.

Mr. Biggar (Ireland) said a number of procedural motions has already been made on the action. He could no longer co-sponsor the draft. However, he believed there were many positive points in it. He rejected Egypt'sb proposal and hoped other delegations wouldvote against it.

Mr. Fulci (Italy) said he associated himself with the representative of Ireland.

The no action motion was then put to a vote.

By a vote of 60 in favour to 71 against, with 23 abstentions, the no action motion was defeated.

Speaking in explanation of vote, before the vote on the resolution, the representative of Ireland said he had voted against Singapore's amendment as had many other co-sponsors. However, he supported the draft resolution, especially because his country had abolished the death penalty. He especially supported the parts of the text that called States to adopt the Second Optional Protocol and the part which called for the adoption of a moratorium on pending execution, as well as the paragraph that addressed States compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. He had strong reservations in regard to Singapore's amendment, but would vote in favour of the draft resolution.

The representative of Honduras said he had been obliged to withdraw sponsorship because the efforts to have a consensus text had failed. Singapore's amendment did not refer to international law and ignored the commitments of international treatries that were of great importance. The legal elements of the draft resolution had a critical foundation in international law.

The representative of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the five Nordic countries, said they had supported the original draft resolution not only beacuse of their position on capital punishment, but also because it had been felt that the text was balanced, and focused on fundamental human concerns withou attempting to impose values on States. The compromise proposed by the co-sponsors had been rejected. Instead, the draft had been amended to the extent that the co-sponsors could no longer associate themselves with it. The amended draft contained references to the sovereign right of States, but that right must be exercised in conformity with international law, which imposed certain restrictions on the use of the death penalty. Unfortunately, respect for international law had not found its way into the amended draft text. For this reason, unfortunately, the Nordic countries would be compelled to abstain on the draft.

The representative of India said he would vote against the draft resolution said he would vote against the draft resolution because it militated against the legal provisions in India for the use of the death penalty for such crimes as murder, drug trafficking in large quantities and other serious crimes. However laudable the draft's aims, India could not support a draft that attempted to dictate laws to States. The amendment improved the draft, but was not satisfactory. The draft's spirit was already taken into account in India, where the death penalty was imposed only in extremely rare cases for the most heincus crimes. The Indian criminal code provided for the postponement of the imposition of capital punishment for pregnant women. Thier sentences could be commuted to life imprisonment. Nor could the death penalty be imposed on juveniles or insane persons under Indian law.

The representative of Yemen said the application of capital punishment aimed basically at maintaining the right to life of all people. The crime of premeditated murder threatened the life of individuals and the safety of society. A deterrent to that crime was needed. The holy Koran provided for retalition - "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". The islamic sharia stipulated that capital punishment could not be imposed on juveniles, the insane or pregnant women. Those factors took into consideration the humanitarian factors governing the imposition of capital punishment. Yemen would vote against the draft, which did not take account of the legislative, cultural or legal of each society.

The representative of Brunei said he could not accept the imposition of some countries' values on others, as the amended text attempted to do. There was no universal consensus for capital punishment, which was contrary to international law. In his country, capital punishment was reserved only for specific heinous acts and could not be applied to pregnant women.

The representative of Canada said her country would abstain on the amended text. She would have preferred to vote on the original text. The scope of sovereignty was defined by the United Nations and States needed to follow international law and respect human rights. Sovereignty did not imply that one could act counter to United Nations international human rights instruments. All States needed to respect human rights regardless of their right to sovereignty.

The representative of Algeria said the initiatives on the text had divided the international community. No country should impose its ideas on others. States had the right to choose the international legal commitments that matched their national ones. The draft resolution had lost all its co-sponsors and had deepened international divisions. Even though a number of the recommendations was a source of division. He would vote against it.

The representative of Egypt said he had fully explained his position during the Committee's discussion of the matter. He had proposed the no action motion to spare the Committee the agony of undergoing an exercise which only heightened divisions between States. The draft resolution was unacceptable because it interfered in the internal matters of States. The amended text was "less bad than before but still bad". Egypt would vote against it.

The representative of Malaysia said he had consinstently stated its position on the matter - from the General Committee to the General Assembly to the Committee - which maintained that the whole initiative was divisive, did not command consensus, and intruded in the internal affairs of States. The action at today's meeting had underlined the divisiveness of the issue. Malaysia would vote against the draft resolution.

The representative of Senegal the nobel aims of the former co-sponsors of the text had been laudable, but the draft caused some concern. The right to life involved education, food and other matters. If the time spent on capital punishment could have been used to discuss those matters, progress would have been achieved.

Senegalese law provided for capital punishment, with the exception of pregnant women, but it had only been applied twice since the country attained independence in 1960, he said. Singapore's amendment had been welcome, but the text still posed difficulties. Capital punishment could not be associated with the notion of a State disposing of human life. Capital punishment was a preventive measure against persons committing crimes and abhorrent acts which took the lives of others. Senegal could not vote against its own constitution, and would vote against the draft.

The representative of New Zealand said his country would abstain on the draft. The death penalty was a punishment which could not be reconciled with respect for human rights. New Zealand had proudly been the first country to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the abolition of the death penalty would contribute to the enhancement of human dignity. New Zealand had been a co-sponsors of the draft, which had been a modest but constructive initiative. It sought to draw attention to the fact that some States still used capital punishment for ordinary crimes and to encourage States to ratify the Second Optional Protocol. The co-sponsors had revised the draft in order to take into account the concerns of others, while maintaining the draft's spirit.

New Zealand could not support the draft as amended, he said. The new preambular paragraph asserted that States could determine if and when they would use torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. That contradicted international law. The death penalty was not a matter governed solely by national jurisdiction; it was a matter that was dealt with in major international treaties. The original text would have in no way infringed on the rights or sovereignty of States. The draft contained a number of commendable elements, but New Zealand was compelled to abstain on the text as a whole.

The representative of Kuwait said the implementation of capital punishment was dealt with in his country's higher courts. Furthermore, it has forbidden to impose the death penalty on pregnant women and children. Capital punishment was not an infringement of human rights because it was not a violation of human rights. Rather, it was intended to deter gross violations of human rights. He would vote against the draft resolution.

The representative of Portugal said the issue of capital punishment should not be such a divisive initiative and he regretted that an amendment was made to the resolution. He supported the reference to the adoption of the Second Optional Protocol, as well as other provisions. He would vote in favour of the draft resolution.

The representative of Australia would abstain from voting on the draft resolution. The right to sovereignty could not take precedence over a State's human rights obligations. For that reason, her country had withdrawn from co-sponsorship of the text.

The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said that cultures, religious and histories varied from country to country. Each State had the right to choose its method of combating serious crime. Any attempt to internationalize criminal justice systems would be viewed as a unilateral measure. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea would not support the draft.

The representative of the Sudan said his country had long opposed the draft, in the plenary and in the Committee. Each State, in accordance with its religion and culture, had the right to choose the penalties necessary to deter crimes on its territory. It was an interference in the internal affairs of States and their juridical systems. The Sudan would vote against the draft. Allah had stated that retaliation in kind could be life-sustaining.

The representative of Saudi Arabia said his country, too, had long opposed discussion of the matter in the Committee, as it only served to heighten divisiveness. The matter was clearly controversial and should be avoided. The matter should have been studied from a legal standpoint in the Sixth Committee (Legal). The Second Optional Protocol did not justify attempts by States to impose laws on others States. That ran counter to international law. The draft resolution also ran contrary to the Islamic shariah.

The representative of Andorra said that his country was committed to the original aims of the revised draft. The amendment made by Singapore was unacceptable, because it did not take account of international law. Andorra would abstain on the draft with regret, because the abolition of capital punishment was a human rights issue that should be dealt with by the United Nations, respecting at the same time the sovereignty of all States. The affirmation of human rights and human dignity must remain a concern of the Committee.

The representative of the Cote d'Ivoire said the draft resolution contained positive elements, particulary with regard to the execution of pregnant women, children and the insane, as well as instituting a moratorium. Capital punishment existed in her country, but it had not been practised for years. However, it was still part of her country's legislation, because it was believed to be a deterrent. Despite that, States could not be forced to change their national laws. For those reasons, she would abstain on the text.

The representative of France said international law should not be challenged. For that reason, he had withdrawn as a co-sponsor and would abstain.

The representative of Malta said his country believed that the exercise of the right to sovereignty should always follow international law. He praised many parts of the text, such as the provisions regarding the Second Optional Protocol, and said he would vote in favour.

The representative of Jamaica said, unfortunately, the draft resolution had proven to be difficult and divisive. It had been motivated by good intentions. Jamaica was strongly committed to the fundamental principle of the sovereignty right of States to determine wheter the death penalty was appropriate in its society. Jamaica's penal system provided for the death penalty, with the exception of pregnant women or minors. Jamaica would vote against the draft.

The representative of Costa Rica said her country had abolished capital punishment more than 100 years ago. Costa Rica felt that is a State was a party to an optional international instrument, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it committed itself to comply with its provisions and did not lose its sovereignty in so doing. She had opposed the amendment because she had wanted to maintain the integrity of the compromise revised text. The amended text did contain important elements, and Costa Rica would, therefore, vote in favour.

The representative on the United Arab Emirates said the compromise text had been unacceptable. All present had endeavoured to reach an acceptable solution, but at this hour it was evident that no consensus had been reached. The United Arab Emirates had supported Singapore's amendment. Yet, the draft resolution as a whole was inadequate and he would vote against it.

The representative of Peru said his country only applied the death penalty in such cases as terrorism and attack against the State. Peru would abstain on the draft.

The represenative of Ireland requested a recorded vote.

The draft resolution on capital punishment was been rejected by a vote of 36 in favour to 44 against, with 74 abstentions.