Third Committee, 44th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session

I'll respect your reservations. Colleagues, we will resume in a short moment. Thank you, colleagues, very much indeed. The 44th meeting, colleagues, could I have attention, please? The 44th meeting of the Third Committee of the General Assembly at its 81st session is called to order. The documentation before the Committee for this meeting is listed on iGov. I wish to remind delegations, statements made in explanation of vote before or after the vote or general statements shall not exceed three minutes. You're also reminded of the rules of procedure concerning sponsorship of a proposal. So a party that speaks as a sponsor of a proposal is not permitted to speak in explanation of a vote on the proposal. As you'll recall, we left proceedings at 1:00 PM with a list of speakers remaining, and we will resume that list. It's in relation to... Could I have some quiet, please? We'll resume that consideration of agenda item 70B, entitled "Human Rights Questions, including Alternative Approaches for Improving the Effective Enjoyment of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms." and to hear the remaining speakers. We had Ethiopia, Malaysia, Israel, Uganda, Pakistan, Mali, Japan, Niger, Nigeria, and Holy See. The Secretariat is going to tell me that I've got that correct. And Ethiopia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation would like to thank Finland on behalf of the Nordic countries for presenting this important resolution. Ethiopia unequivocally condemns all forms of extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, and reaffirms the fundamental importance of protecting the inherent right to life. We underscore the responsibility of states to prevent unlawful killings, investigate suspected cases, and ensure accountability in accordance with their respective obligations under international law. In this regard, Ethiopia's constitution guarantees the right to life under Article 15, and no person may be deprived of his or her life, except as a punishment for serious criminal offense determined by law. Likewise, the provision of Article 28 provides that criminal liability of persons who commit crimes such as summary executions, forcible disappearance, or torture so defined by the international agreements ratified by Ethiopia and other laws of Ethiopia shall be barred by no statute of limitation. Such offence may not be commuted by amnesty or pardon of the legislature or any other state organ. These constitutional guarantees reflect our commitment to protecting human dignity and safeguarding fundamental rights. My delegation would like to draw attention to the fact that more than one third of the UN membership, including my own country, Ethiopia, are not member of the International Criminal Court or party to the Rome Statute. Hence, we dissociate ourselves from the reference to International Criminal Court or the Rome Statute under preamble paragraph 18 and operative paragraph 16 A and B of the resolution. Accordingly, our position on this resolution doesn't imply acceptance of the court's jurisdiction or create any obligation to cooperate with the court arising from the resolution. Moreover, my delegation also dissociates itself regarding the reference to sexual orientation and gender identity in operative paragraph 8(b). These concepts are not recognized within Ethiopia’s domestic legal and policy framework. We cannot associate ourselves with such reference. We believe that the language of UN resolutions should take into due consideration the different national legal systems, constitutional frameworks, and established positions of Member States. In view of these concerns, my delegation abstained in the voting on the entire resolution. This abstention should not be, however, construed as weakening Ethiopia's unequivocal opposition to extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary execution or our commitment to the protection of the right to life, the prevention of unlawful killings, and accountability of perpetrators. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ethiopia. I pass the floor to Malaysia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Malaysia aligns itself with the statement delivered by Egypt on behalf of a group of OIC member states and wishes to deliver this explanation of position in its national capacity. Malaysia unequivocally condemns all forms of extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions, which constitute serious violations of human rights, particularly their fundamental right to life. Accountability for such violations is essential to upholding justice, human dignity, and the rule of law. At the national level, Malaysia continues to undertake progressive and carefully considered reforms of its criminal justice system. Following the abolition of the mandatory death penalty in 2023, Malaysia has successfully completed the review of sentences involving 906 eligible inmates, restoring judicial discretion and ensuring that punishment remains proportionate, fair, and consistent with the principles of justice. Malaysia has now entered the next phase of its reforms, with the establishment of a special working group to comprehensively examine the country's long-term policy direction on the death penalty. This process will be guided by evidence-based assessments, stakeholder consultations, and careful consideration of human rights, victims' rights, and public safety within our national constitutional and legal framework. It is in this spirit that Malaysia has voted in favour of the resolution as a whole. Malaysia also voted in favour of the amendment to operative paragraph 8B proposed by a group of OIC member states, which sought to address the long-standing concerns of a number of delegations through a broader formulation that would encompass all persons at heightened risk of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Regrettably, the reference to sexual orientation or gender identity remains in the resolution. Malaysia therefore wishes to reiterate its long-standing position and disassociate itself from the said reference in OP.8.b, which Malaysia does not recognize as agreed language. Our position on this terminology in no way diminishes Malaysia's commitment to the protection of the right to life of all persons without discrimination.

I thank you. Thank you, Malaysia. Israel, followed by Uganda. Could we have the microphone? Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Israel affirms its commitment to the objective of this resolution adopted today. Having said that, as there are still references in the text that Israel cannot support, we abstain on the adoption of the resolution. Israel cannot support this resolution in the view of the positive language with regard to the International Criminal Court. In our view, this body has shown a dangerous lack of responsibility and integrity, acting as a merely political tool.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Israel. I pass to Uganda, then Pakistan, Uganda.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uganda aligns itself with the statement delivered by Egypt on behalf of a group of OIC Member States. My delegation takes the floor to explain its vote following the adoption of draft resolution entitled “Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” contained in document A/C/3/81/L. Uganda reaffirms its commitment to the protection of the right to life as enshrined in Article 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. However, my delegation regrets the continued inclusion of non-consensual language in operative paragraph 8B of the resolution. As a co-sponsor of the amendment contained in document L/53, Uganda reiterates that these terms have no internationally agreed definitions and remain inconsistent with our national legislation and our religious, social, and cultural values. For these reasons, Uganda has abstained on the resolution and disassociates itself from the reference to sexual orientation or gender identity in operative paragraph 8B.

I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Uganda. Pakistan?

Mr. Chair, my delegation is expressing its position on the draft resolution titled "Extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions" contained in document A/C3/81/L.37/Rev.1. Pakistan is committed to protecting human rights in general and the right to life in particular. The domestic laws of Pakistan prohibit arbitrary executions without a fair trial and have expressly provided for judicial trial processes that respected the lawful rights of defendants. We firmly believe that States have the responsibility and obligation to ensure that no person or group of persons are subject to violence and arbitrary executions. We remain concerned that extrajudicial killings and arbitrary executions continue to happen with impunity in many parts of the world, in particular in situations of armed conflict and foreign occupation, as duly noted in the draft resolution. Mr. Chair, while we support the fundamental premise of the resolution, we continue to remain concerned about certain elements in the draft text, which, for years, have eluded consensus on this resolution in the Third Committee. Firstly, reference to the concept of sexual orientation and gender identity in operative paragraph 8(b) continues to remain problematic for many delegations. These concerns were also raised during the informal consultations on the draft resolution. While the right to life should be protected for all persons with no discrimination whatsoever, it is regrettable the text has been used by some countries to impose their value systems on others. In this regard, inclusion of superficial categories and terminologies which do not enjoy universal recognition must be avoided. Secondly, we reject the equation of the legitimate resort by States to death penalty with extrajudicial killing. Unfortunately, since the present draft continues to retain elements which are not acceptable for my delegation, consequently, my delegation has chosen to abstain on the draft resolution. We hope that in future the sponsors of this resolution will address these long-standing concerns so that consensus can be achieved on it.

I thank you.

Thank you, Pakistan. Mali, to be followed by Japan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Malim Mali endorses the statement of Egypt on behalf of the relevant group. Human life is sacrosanct, and this is enshrined in the founding documents of Mali. And it's in our constitution as well. But the principles apply purely and simply to human people. No organization is understood to be mean by that. Also, we believe that the word gender refers to the male and female sex, so we disassociate ourselves from OP 8B, and we think that the provisions of the resolution L-37 should be interpreted in light of our legal texts, our values, and our traditions. Finally, no provision not agreed under international law shall apply to Mali. And I would like that to be reflected in the record of this meeting. Thank you.

Thank you, Mali. Japan, followed by Niger. Japan.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Japan would like to express its appreciation to the co-facilitators for presenting this important draft resolution. While we voted in favour of the resolution, we would like to elaborate our position. Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions are grave human rights violations, as well as crimes under international law. Japan recognizes the important role played by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions toward eliminating them. However, in his latest report presented to the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/62/37, titled “The death penalty from the perspective of the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and the protection of human dignity,” The SR calls upon all states to retain the death penalty to urgently hold execution and move toward full abolition, the premise that the death penalty cannot be reconciled with the absolute prohibition of torture. Japan does not consider that the death penalty self constitutes extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary execution. and takes the view that the contents of the aforementioned report go beyond the mandate of the SR. Moreover, with consideration to the various treaties to which Japan is a party, as well as customary international law, we understand that under international law there is no established norm that the penalty and practices normally associated with executions are incompatible with the prohibition of torture. We acknowledge the importance of the role of the SR in addressing extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and we hope that the SR will continue his meaningful work within the mandate toward eliminating these grave human rights violations. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Japan. Niger, followed by Nigeria.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following the adoption of draft resolution L-37, entitled On Extrajudicial and Summary Arbitrary Executions, we condemn any extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, and we think that everyone, all the perpetrators must be held to account. We dissociate ourselves from the reference to sexual orientation and gender. This terminology has not been agreed on intergovernmentally. We reserve on the right to interpretate this notion in the light of its national context in particular. with regard to the social and cultural traditions and in accordance with our legislation and with respect for our international obligations and the modalities of their application to our territory. Our delegation remains committed to universality, ensuring that everyone, with no distinctions made, in accordance with our domestic commitments and our international legislations. We regret as well that the amendments were not adopted, so my delegation disassociates itself from the reference to the Statute of Rome and the ICC, which are in paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 16 of the operative section. Mr. Chairman, Niger submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations its notification of the withdrawal from the Statute of Rome in accordance with the relevant article This has entered into force in line with this decision. We disassociate ourselves from the references to it everywhere where they are found in General Assembly resolutions. I ask the Secretariat to note the position of Niger in the record of this meeting, including what we just said. Thank you.

We lost the timer there for a bit. Nigeria, followed by the Holy See. Nigeria? Could I have... Yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nigeria aligns with the statement delivered by Egypt on behalf of OIC and wishes to make the following remarks in its national capacity. We strongly condemn all forms of extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions and underscore the responsibility of state to prevent unlawful killings, ensure impartial investigation, and hold perpetrators accountable in accordance with their national laws and applicable international obligations. Nigeria recognizes the importance of protecting individuals and groups who may be particularly vulnerable to unlawful killings, including women and girls, children, persons with disabilities, minorities, and other vulnerable populations. reason why Nigeria voted in favor of the resolution as a whole. However, Nigeria wishes to retrace its reservation in OP8 regarding references to sexual orientation and gender identity in United Nations resolutions. Nigeria maintains that such terminology has not achieved universal agreement among member states and that its consideration should take its account the diverse national, legal, cultural, and social context of member states. We emphasize the importance of ensuring that the interpretation and application of international human rights obligations remain grounded in universally agreed international instruments. Nigeria remains committed to the prevention of unlawful killings, the promotion of accountability, and the protection of the dignity and fundamental rights of all persons.

I thank you.

Thank you, Nigeria. I have Bangladesh, to be followed finally by the Holy See as the last speaker. Bangladesh, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. Chair, we support the resolution. However, we disassociate ourselves from the paragraph reflecting SOGIESCIE language, and we will interpret that in accordance with our national legislation and national context. Thank you.

Thank you, Bangladesh. The final speaker on my list is Holy Sea. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry. The delegation of the Holy See would like to thank the delegation of Finland on behalf of the Nordic countries for facilitating the resolution "Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions". My delegation appreciates that the resolution affirms the obligation of States to protect the right to life of all persons, including those deprived by their liberty, in all circumstances. and also qualifies extrajudicial executions as flagrant violations of the right to life. The Holy See further appreciates the clear call to take steps in order to decrease the need to use weapons of any kind. While noting these positive aspects in the text, the Holy See as an observer State is obliged to make the following reservations on the adopted resolutions. While firmly condemning all forms of discrimination and reaffirming the equal God-given dignity of every human person, the Holy See takes note and stresses that the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity contained in OP8b lack definitions under international law and do not enjoy consensus. In this respect, the Holy See further stresses that gender identity is not independent of personal sexual identity. In addition, the term gender is understood by the Holy See as grounded in biological sexual identity, male or female. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Holy See. That concludes our consideration of resolution document L.37. And I now invite the Committee to turn to draft resolution A/C3/81/L.43, entitled "Moratorium on the use of the death penalty", and the amendment thereto contained in document L.50. I give the floor to the Secretary to read out a statement of programme budget implications of that draft resolution. Secretary, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The statement is made in accordance with rule 153 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. I would also like to draw the attention of the Committee to the oral statement of programme budget implications in connection with draft resolution AC/3/81/L.43 that was circulated to all delegations through the Third Committee module of the e-delegate portal on 6 November. The request contained in operative paragraph 12 of the draft resolution entailing a change in periodicity of a recurrent biennial report from a biennial to a triennial basis, with the next report in 2029, would constitute an adjustment to the workload for the Secretariat starting from 2028 and would likely entail adjustments to resource requirements accordingly. In this regard, a holistic and detailed assessment would be required to quantify the financial implications resulting from this paragraph and other mandates changing the periodicity of reports. Accordingly, should the General Assembly adopt the draft resolution L/43, there would be no programme budget implications for 2027. With regard to the requirements for 2028 and subsequent years, Related adjustments in resource requirements will be reflected in the proposed programme budget in the relevant years for the consideration of the General Assembly. Thank you.

I thank the Secretary. I would also like to inform the Committee that the amendment contained in document L/50 contains no programme budget implications. And now, let me give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico to make a statement. Mexico, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On behalf of the 45 member states and the European Union comprising the Interregional Task Force, I have the honor to introduce draft resolution L-43, moratorium on the use of the death penalty, facilitated by Switzerland and my own country, Mexico. This resolution reflects our shared commitment to human dignity, the right to life, and the prevention of irreversible miscarriages of justice. Since its last adoption, States across regions have maintained moratoriums and taken steps towards abolition. Yet, reported executions increased by almost 80% in 2025 compared to 2024. Although concentrated in a small number of States, this increase underscores the urgency of the General Assembly's call for a moratorium. Behind these figures are individuals whose lives depend on the fairness of criminal justice systems. No system is immune to error. A moratorium offers an opportunity to strengthen safeguards and prevent irreversible loss of life. Mr. Chair, diplomacy requires listening to one another. This year, the task force made a considerable collective effort to build bridges and incorporate sovereignty language drawn from Singapore's amendment adopted by this committee since 2016 with limited adjustments for legal precision. Regrettably, despite these efforts, Singapore has tabled its amendment without seeking a compromise during the negotiations. For this reason, the co-facilitators are temporarily withdrawing the compromise language through the following oral revisions. In the first preamble paragraph, we delete the words "including the principle of the sovereign equality of all of its members." The paragraph will therefore read the same as in the resolution adopted in 2024: "Guided by the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations." We also delete preamble or paragraph 23 in its entirety. Should Singapore's amendment not be adopted, we commit to reintroducing this compromise language on sovereignty through an oral amendment. The draft also contains substantive updates. It strengthens procedural and judicial safeguards, emphasizes fair and public trials, and underscores protection without discrimination. It adds a reference to older persons and addresses circumstances affecting women and girls in criminal justice systems. It encourages states observing moratoriums to maintain and consider formalizing them. It also recognizes the 9 World Congress Against the Death Penalty and moves consideration of this resolution and the Secretary General's report to a three-year cycle in line with UNAD efforts. We thank all delegations that contributed to the consultations, and we invite them to reject Singapore's amendments and support the draft resolution, preserving its central purpose. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mexico. The iGov site contains a list of delegations which have co-sponsored L/43. Let me now give the floor to the Secretary to invite those further delegations who would like to co-sponsor L/43 to do so. Secretary, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L/43 as orally revised, please signify by pressing the microphone button. I see no requests.

Thank you, Secretary. I now give the floor to the Permanent Representative of Singapore to introduce the amendment contained in document L/50.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, distinguished delegates. I have the honor indeed to introduce amendment L/50, which is co-sponsored by more than 20 delegations. We have presented this amendment because there continues to be a legitimate and fundamental disagreement on the issue of capital punishment. Regrettably, our views were not incorporated by the proponents of L43. Please allow me to make three points. First, the text of the Singapore amendment is entirely consistent with international law and is fully aligned with the UN Charter. The Singapore amendment is also fully consistent with the ICCPR, article 6. Our amendment is therefore rooted firmly in international law and is based on respect for the rule of law. Second, all countries have the sovereign right to develop their own legal systems. In many countries, capital punishment is part of a criminal justice system that is well embedded in national legislation and legal traditions. In some countries, it is even enshrined in their national constitution. That is why these are sovereign decisions that every country must make for itself. Thirdly, the amendment we are presenting is not new, not at all. It was adopted by a resounding majority in 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024. We do not think it is fair or reasonable to delete what has been agreed by the majority at five consecutive sessions. All we are asking for is fairness by restoring what has been adopted over the last 10 years. Finally, it is a well-known fact that there is no international consensus against the use of the death penalty. We do not think that this Committee should seek to impose a consensus when there is none. The rules-based multilateral system is built on mutual respect. I think we should all have the wisdom to recognize our legitimate differences when there are such differences. Again, all we ask for is that this paragraph, which is our amendment, be restored to its rightful place. Mr. Chair, distinguished delegates, with great respect and humility, I ask all members to vote yes for the Singapore amendment. Thank you.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Singapore. I draw to delegations' attention the list of co-sponsors available on iGov, and I now give the floor to the Secretary to invite additional co-sponsors who wish to identify themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor the amendment contained in document L50, please signify by pressing the microphone button. I see no requests.

Thank you, Secretary. In accordance with rule 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, we will first take a decision on the proposed amendment. A recorded vote has been requested on the amendment to draft resolution L/43, as orally revised, as contained in document L/50. Let me ask whether any delegation wishes to make a general statement or an explanation of vote before the vote in connection with the amendment to draft resolution L/43, as orally revised, as contained in document L/50. I have a number of delegations wishing to speak, as follows. Let me read out the first tranche: Switzerland, Ireland, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Uruguay, Liechtenstein, and Canada. The Permanent Representative of Switzerland, you have the floor.

Mr. Chair, I am delivering this statement on behalf of Mexico and my own country, Switzerland, in our capacity as co-facilitators, as well as on behalf of the 45 member states of the Interregional Task Force for the Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty. We deeply regret that an amendment has been tabled again this year and hereby request a vote on the amendment L-50. Dear colleagues, From the outset, constructive engagement with all UN Member States has been our priority. We have upheld the spirit of multilateralism and listened to all sides to find compromise. Thereby, we took careful note of the importance many delegations place on the sovereignty of States, which is reflected in the amendment before us. Despite our principled stance against the language of the proposed amendment, the ARTF showed flexibility and for the very first time put forward compromise language that was introduced in the zero draft and was kept in the draft up until today's adoption. A compromise of this magnitude was not reached easily. It emerged only after extensive deliberations both here in New York and in our capitals. Our compromise language substitutes OP 1 from previous resolutions, which the amendment before us seeks to reintroduce. In a gesture of good faith, we kept the language of former OP 1 and converted it into the first and the last preambular paragraph. In our draft proposal, PP 1 now references the principle of the sovereign equality of all UN Member States, which is drawn verbatim from the UN Charter. PP23 recalls the right of all States to develop their own legal systems in accordance with international law. This includes both treaty obligations and customary international law in line with this Committee’s work to promote and protect human rights. Moving the language from former OP.1 to the preamble also keeps our OP.1 focused on the resolution’s central objective. calling upon States to establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Dear colleagues, the resolution before us encourages debate and discussion. It does not, I repeat, it does not impose anything on anyone. The establishment of a moratorium on executions is a sovereign decision that rests within the prerogative of each State. It is worth noting that more than four out of five countries worldwide decided to no longer apply the death penalty. This reflects a steady trend towards a global moratorium on executions. We invite all Member States to support this resolution as drafted and respectfully call upon you to support our compromise that we presented in a spirit of good faith by voting against the amendment.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Switzerland. I now invite the Permanent Representative of Papua New Guinea to make his intervention.

Distinguished Chair and fellow delegates, my delegation wishes to explain our position before action on L.50, as introduced by my colleague, the distinguished Permanent Representative of Singapore. Papua New Guinea notes with interest the Secretary-General's report contained in A/81/316 on the moratorium on the death penalty and encourages the continued dialogue on this important issue. The Secretary-General's report is sobering, to say the least. Yet, rather surprisingly, it says nothing about the fundamental rights and freedoms of victims of perpetrators facing the death penalty. Why is this the case? And how can such an important report be made in a fair and balanced way? Chair, my delegation approaches this issue from the perspective of a country which, in January 2022, repealed the death penalty from our statutes. That decision was taken through our own constitutional and legislative processes, reflecting our national circumstances and the direction we chose for our criminal justice system as a sovereign state. Our experience reinforces an important point: which my delegation wishes to underscore. That is, when addressing the death penalty, it must go hand in hand with the respect for State sovereignty, sovereign rights, and domestic legal processes. The administration of criminal justice remains a fundamental sovereign right and responsibility of the State. Decisions concerning the retention, abolition, or establishment of a moratorium on the death penalty must therefore take into account each country's sovereign rights, constitutional framework, legislation, and international law obligations, and national circumstances. At the same time, our discussion should not lose sight of the fundamental rights and freedoms, and the suffering of victims and their families at the hands of perpetrators of serious crimes facing the death penalty. A balanced approach to such Rather, a balanced approach to justice must give proper consideration to victims. The continuing calls by proponents of the moratorium on the use of the death penalty with a view to abolish it is highly insensitive, to say the least. Chair, we therefore remain convinced that the amendment made by Singapore is the right one. Whilst we welcome the willingness of the sponsors of L.43 to include certain amendments for a fair and balanced text, however, it suffers from several fundamental flaws. First, it is crafted to suit the inherent and vested interest of those delegations opposed to the death penalty. Second, it is not illegal under international law as it relates to the death penalty. Chair, Papua New Guinea will support L.50 and encourage our delegations to do so. Thank you.

Thank the Permanent Representative of Papua New Guinea. I pass to the Permanent Representative of France. You have the floor.

Mr. Jim, France, faithful to the commitment of the the father of the abolishment of the death penalty in France, Robert Badinter, who affirmed in 1981 that French justice would never be a justice that kills. No judiciary system is infallible. The death penalty runs an unacceptable risk of judicial error with irreversible consequences. violation against human life, the first step in the definitive abolition of the death penalty was reaffirmed by the participants of the 9th Congress. And no one can contest that it's a major progress. We welcome the work of Mexico and Switzerland, co-facilitators of this resolution, they have undertaken significant efforts during the negotiations to respond to the concerns expressed By certain delegations for France, the language proposed this year of the pre-draft resolution is supported by the broad almost all members of the interregional working group and allows and makes it possible to respond to the concerns in a spirit of dialogue and. Mr. Chairman, France does not contest the principle of sovereignty of States. Let us recall that the resolution does not impose on a State to change its internal legislation. The compromise language proposed is clear on this: "Each State is free to develop its own legal systems and determine the applicable penalties." But that is precisely sovereignty, the exercise of its freedom in the framework of obligations that a State has freely subscribed to. With this in mind, France considers that the amendment would divert the meaning of the resolution. We will vote against the amendment and in favor of the resolution as presented by the co-facilitators, and we invite all the delegations to do the same. Thank you.

The representative of France. I pass to the representative of Ireland, to be followed by New Zealand. Ireland, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, Ukraine, Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as San Marino align themselves with this statement. Let me start by expressing our deep appreciation to the co-facilitators, Mexico and Switzerland, for their leadership and constructive engagement with all UN Member States on this important resolution this year. This resolution focuses on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. It does not impose abolition, nor does it seek to replace national criminal justice systems. It calls on States to make the decision to suspend executions, either by law or in practice. In fact, the vast majority of UN Member States have already made that decision. Less than 20 countries continue to carry out executions consistently. It is therefore deeply regretful that negotiations on the resolution for the past years have been overshadowed by a debate on the so-called sovereignty amendment. The IRTF has consistently rejected this language, as it implies that national sovereignty can be invoked to circumvent compliance with international human rights law. The EU fully acknowledges that States have the right to develop their legal systems and determine legal penalties. We recognise that the amendment has received significant support in previous years, and understand that many States supporting the resolution wish to see their sovereign responsibility for decisions concerning a moratorium reflected in the text. In the spirit of constructive engagement, and after extensive discussions among the 46 members of the IRTF, the EU and its Member States have supported the co-facilitator’s compromise proposal, which uses the text of the amendment, with some minimal but important changes to ensure that the language relating to sovereignty is strictly aligned with the UN Charter and international law. The compromise proposal in PP1 and PP23 included this year since the zero draft was a genuine good faith attempt to find an acceptable agreement that reflects the concern of the majority of states that support this resolution. We are pleased that many countries have recognized this. We regret that not all delegations have engaged with the same spirit of compromise and that the amendment was once again brought back this year. The formulation and placement of the amendment undermine the very purpose of this resolution and imply that States can use sovereignty as an excuse to disregard the universality of human rights and to consider this call to action as null and void. The Member States of the European Union cannot support this and will therefore vote against amendment L50 and respectfully invite others to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you, Ireland. I pass to New Zealand, then Uruguay.

Thank you, Chair. New Zealand is proud to be a member of the Interregional Task Force on the Moratorium of the Use of the Death Penalty. We have a clear and long-standing position on this resolution, which is based on our opposition to the death penalty in all cases and under all circumstances. We consider capital punishment fundamentally inconsistent with international human rights law, particularly the right to life and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment. Its application is irreversible, it disproportionately affects marginalised and vulnerable groups, and there is no credible evidence that it serves as an effective deterrent to crime. We are gravely concerned by the sharp increase in the use of the death penalty globally. Recent reporting indicates that 2,707 executions were carried out in 2025, representing a 78% increase compared with 2024. Against a backdrop of growing repression in many parts of the world, New Zealand is particularly alarmed by the increasing use of capital punishment to silence dissent and restrict the exercise of fundamental freedoms. These trends only reinforce the urgency of continued progress towards abolition and underscore the importance of the resolution before us today. New Zealand wishes to thank Mexico and Switzerland for their leadership as co-facilitators. Throughout negotiations, they demonstrated a genuine commitment to bridging different views among Member States, including through the introduction of compromise language in PP1 referring to sovereign equality of states under the Charter of the United Nations, and in PP23, recognizing the right of states to develop their own legal systems. We deeply regret that the extensive efforts undertaken to bridge differences among Member States were not considered sufficient by some delegations. We are therefore disappointed that the amendment to operative paragraph 1 has once again been tabled, particularly given that the draft proposal included almost identical language in PP23, specifically crafted to address concerns raised during negotiations. In our view, the proposed amendment would undermine the core purpose and spirit of this resolution. Accordingly, New Zealand will vote against the amendment and in favour of the resolution as a whole. We hope that during the 84th session, Member States will be able to build on the progress achieved this year and continue moving towards greater consensus on this important issue. New Zealand remains committed to working with all Member States to advance the shared objective and to promote the universal protection of human rights. I thank you.

Thank you, New Zealand. I pass to Uruguay, then Liechtenstein. Uruguay.

Thank you, Chair. On behalf of Uruguay, I would like to express our strongest support to the draft resolution entitled "Moratorium on the use of the death penalty", which we are happy to co-sponsor, and I want to thank Mexico and Switzerland for their excellent conduct of the negotiations. Uruguay abolished the death penalty in law in 1907 and granted constitutional status to this prohibition in 1918. We consider that the death penalty is the most severe violation of the right to life and an example, the worst example of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. We also observe that available evidence at the global level demonstrates that the death penalty does not have a deterrence effect on major crime more than other types of punishment. The resolution that we have before us addresses this issue in a balanced and respectful way, given the diversity of the positions of states. Its scope is limited to the moratorium on the use of the death penalty and the respect for minimum safeguards recognized by international law of human rights, including the principle of non-discrimination. My delegation does not consider it appropriate the amendment that seeks to prioritize the sovereign right of each state to determine its judicial sanctions. We consider that its language is unnecessary and redundant, and it is geared towards weakening the object of the resolution itself. We should recall that the resolutions of this General Assembly are not legally binding and merely contain recommendations that Member States can implement in conformity with their respective contexts and national priorities and their obligations under international law. Likewise, from a procedural point of view, we note that even though the amendment has been adopted, there's no real will to support the amended text. Therefore, we don't share the relevance of introducing an amendment to a resolution whose content, even with that modification, would not be supported. This type of practice contravenes the very meaning of our multilateral efforts. For all these reasons, Uruguay supports the resolution as it was submitted by its sponsors and will vote against the amendment, and urges the rest of the States to support the text as presented. Thank you.

Thank you, Uruguay. I pass to Liechtenstein.

Thank you, Chair.

Liechtenstein has been a strong and long-standing

supporter of the resolution moratorium on the use of the death penalty, and we thank the delegations of Mexico and Switzerland for facilitating this year's text.

We oppose the death penalty in all circumstances.

In this regard, we wish to reiterate the Human Rights Committee's General Comment number 36 on the right to life, in which it concludes that, and I quote, "The death penalty cannot be reconciled with the full respect for the right to life, and abolition of the death penalty is both desirable and necessary for the enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights." In order to address long-standing reservations of certain delegations regarding this text, the co-facilitators have made genuine efforts this year to achieve

consensus, including by putting forward a compromise proposal reaffirming that Member States have the right to develop their own legal systems, including determining appropriate legal penalties in accordance with international law. We regret that this compromise proposal did not find the necessary

support and find it all the more unfortunate that yet again an amendment has been introduced that would

add a new first operational paragraph that is unrelated to the objective of this resolution and undermine Member States’ commitment to promote universal respect for all human rights, including the right to life. We will thus vote against the amendment and in favour of the resolution, and respectfully encourage other delegations to do the same.

I thank you.

Thank you, Liechtenstein. Canada, to be followed by our final speaker in this set, Iceland. Canada, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation also wishes to join others in expressing regret over the introduction of this amendment to the draft resolution on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Canada is in full support of the principle that all countries have a right to develop their own legal systems. Our position on this has not and will not change. Rather, our collective objective throughout these negotiations on this resolution has been to situate this right within our broader efforts to promote respect for our international obligations on this issue and to further efforts to establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. My delegation accordingly regrets that there was a need to orally amend the resolution by the co-facilitators, namely the compromise package that's been proposed in PP1 and PP23. We feel strongly that the text in the originally tabled resolution would have offered a fair and balanced solution to bridge the divide in our positions. My delegation appreciates that the main sponsors of this resolution have undertaken efforts in the spirit of constructive negotiation and compromise to reach a middle ground. We will therefore vote against this amendment and encourage others to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you, Canada. The final speaker is Iceland. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Let me begin by expressing deep appreciation to Mexico and Switzerland for their constructive leadership on this resolution. Iceland opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and for all people, and remains firmly committed to a universal moratorium on its use. We have been steadfast supporters of this resolution, which focuses on a moratorium and does not seek to replace national legal systems. We recognize efforts made by the co-facilitators to come up with compromise language aligned with the UN Charter, and regret that despite these efforts, the sovereignty amendment has been brought back yet again. While Iceland fully acknowledges that states have the right to develop their own legal systems and penalties, we firmly reject language indicating that national sovereignty can be used to disregard the universality of human rights. We will therefore be voting against the amendment L50 and encourage others to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you, Iceland. I noticed that Costa Rica has sought the floor. You have the floor. Go ahead.

Mr.

Chairman, Costa Rica is grateful to the delegations of Switzerland and Mexico for their leadership in facilitating this resolution and their efforts to promote constructive dialogue. My country regrets the introduction of the amendment proposed today, in spite of the efforts undertaken in good faith by the facilitators to reach a prior compromise and avoid such a scenario. For the first time, it incorporated references to sovereign equality of states. in paragraphs 1 and 23, pp. 1 and pp. 23, in order to have a text that reflects the concerns mentioned in the room. However, the insistence of presenting an additional amendment demonstrates that the objective is not to defend national sovereignty. The objective is to preserve the death penalty. The UN Charter recognizes sovereign equality of states. However, it does not establish the right to absolute sovereignty. Mr. Chairman, justice does not kill. Costa Rica rejects the use of the death penalty under any circumstance because it is irreversible. It contradicts the ideals of justice and violates the fundamental right to life. Supporting this moratorium is not an act against sovereignty. It is merely a reaffirmation of the fundamental principles that gave rise to the United Nations, the defense of human dignity. Costa Rica would like to make an appeal to Member States to support this resolution and to vote against the amendment. It is inconceivable that in 1963 the death penalty was abolished for the first time in Venezuela, in 1965 for the second time in San Marino, and in the 80s in my country, today in 2026, we're still discussing within the United Nations on how to proceed with its application. It is inconceivable. Thank you.

Thank you, Costa Rica. Unless there is some other delegation which wishes to take the floor, we will now proceed to vote on the amendment contained in document L50. Let me remind you of our rules of procedure. There's to be no interruption in voting, save for a point of order relating to that voting. Delegations are invited to indicate their vote on the screen before you.

The Committee is now voting on the amendment to draft resolution L-43 as orally revised, as contained in document L-50. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are correctly reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the voting machine.

Thank you, Secretary. The result of the vote is as follows: in favour 97, against 63, abstentions 16. The amendment to draft resolution L/43, as orally revised, as contained in document L/50, is adopted. Does any delegation wish to make an explanation of vote or general statement after the vote on the amendment? I see Norway, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Norway, as a member of the Interregional Task Force, thanks the co-facilitators, Mexico and Switzerland, for their hard work on this resolution. Norway rejects the use of the death penalty under all circumstances. The death penalty is incompatible with the idea of the dignity of the individual and the principle of humane treatment. Murder sanctioned by the state has a brutalizing and dehumanizing effect on society. Its deterrent effect has not been documented, and experience has shown that a number of innocent people have been executed. This type of judicial killings is irreversible. This resolution calls on all Member States that have not yet abolished the death penalty to introduce a moratorium on executions, with a goal to ultimately abolishing the death penalty. A moratorium on the use of the death penalty contributes to enhancing the respect for human dignity and human life. We note that this resolution does not call for constitutional change or revision of national legislation in order to suspend executions. The decision about the modalities of the moratorium is left for each State. The co-facilitators have throughout the negotiations worked steadfast to find compromise and common ground. We commend both their genuine attempt to find a solution to concerns of different Member States by proposing alternative language aligned with the UN Charter and international law, as well as the Member States who showed flexibility in this regard. Norway therefore votes in favour of this important resolution, but against the amendment proposed, and encourage others to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you, Norway. I have no other delegation seeking the floor. Since the amendment contained in document L50 has been adopted, we shall proceed to take a decision on draft resolution L43 as orally revised and as amended. A recorded vote has been requested on draft Resolution A/C3/81/L43, entitled Moratorium on the use of the death penalty, as orally revised and as amended. Does any delegation wish to make a general statement in connection with that draft resolution as revised and amended, or an explanation of vote before the vote? I have a number of States who have sought to speak. Let me read the first tranche of states who I'll call on: the United States, Chile, Australia, Montenegro, Egypt, Brazil, Republic of Moldova, Canada, Lebanon, and Italy. United States, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Last year, the United States made clear its intention to disengage from most Third Committee resolutions, and we have taken the same approach this year. This resolution contains problematic language that does not advance the United Nations core mandate of maintaining international peace and security. The United States stands for the sovereign right of nations. It is for this reason we support Singapore's amendment on To this resolution on national sovereignty, U.S. leadership has pushed back, including at the U.N., on threats to the United States and its people. These efforts not only support the sovereignty rights and liberties of our U.S. citizens, but they bolster an international system that prioritizes the same for every nation. We re-emphasize that the ultimate decision regarding capital punishment must be addressed through the domestic democratic processes of individual sovereign member states and be consistent with their obligations under international law. International human rights law establishes clearly that member states may, within certain established parameters, use this form of punishment as confirmed by Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a party. Accordingly, the United States does not understand the lawful use of this form of punishment as contravening respect for human rights, both as it relates to the convicted and sentenced individual, as well as the rights of others. Those states wishing to abolish the death penalty within their jurisdiction may choose to ratify the second optional protocol to that covenant. Within the United States, judicial enforcement of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution ensures substantive due process that applies at both the federal and state levels and prohibits methods of execution that would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The United States strongly urges other countries that employ the death penalty to do the same. While our system of government consists of an array of different subnational entities, each responding to the needs and beholden to its people, we all are subject to the U.S. Constitution and committed to administering justice equally and fairly. The United States urges all member states, particularly the supporters of this resolution, to focus their attention on addressing and preventing human rights violations that may result from the improper imposition and application of capital punishment. We strongly urge Member States to ensure they cannot apply capital punishment in an extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary manner. Capital defendants must receive a fair trial before a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law with full, fair trial guarantees. Methods of execution designed to inflict undue pain or suffering must be strictly prohibited. As a result of these concerns, the U.S. must vote no on this resolution. Thank you.

Thank you, United States. Chile, to be followed by Australia. Chile.

Thank you, Chairman. Chile would like to start by thanking delegations of Switzerland and Mexico for their leadership and for the transparent and inclusive way in which they conducted the negotiations on this resolution, always seeking to bridge positions and reach consensus. My delegation voted against the amendment recently adopted that incorporates a reference to the sovereignty of states in a resolution whose purpose is the promotion and protection of human rights. We consider that this inclusion weakens the spirit and the objective of the resolution by introducing considerations that could hinder the development, the progressive development of international law of human rights towards a definitive abolition of the death penalty. The position of Chile has been clear and consistent on this topic. We promote the establishment of a moratorium in executions as a fundamental step towards the abolition of capital punishment. independently of the particularities of judicial systems and internal legislation of each State. For Chile, moving towards the universal abolition of the death penalty is a priority in human rights and reflects our commitment to the protection of the right to life and human dignity. Consequently, Chile will vote in favour of the draft resolution as a whole. We make an appeal to all delegations to support this resolution, including those who were against the amendment in order to demonstrate broad support toward this common goal. Thank you.

Thank you, Julie. Australia, to be followed by Montenegro. Australia.

Thank you, Chair. Australia's opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances for all people is a longstanding commitment grounded in our belief in the inherent rights and dignity of every person. We thank Mexico and Switzerland for their leadership throughout the process of this resolution. When we look at how the death penalty is used around the world, it becomes clear that it does not deliver justice.

It is an affront to it.

When mistakes are made, and they are, there is no undoing them. There is no second chance. Chair, the evidence shows the death penalty is too often applied unfairly to people facing economic or educational disadvantage, people living with intellectual, cognitive and psychosocial disability, foreign nationals, women and ethnic minorities. In some cases, people can still be put to death for who they love, for what they believe, or for exercising their freedom of expression or political opinion.

Too often, the death penalty is applied for drug offences, economic crimes and apostasy.

None of these offences meet the threshold of the most serious crimes to which the death penalty must be restricted under international law and standards. Colleagues, this resolution aims to achieve better protection and promotion of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to protect human dignity and the right of life. When this right is violated, its effects are irreversible and irrevocable.

We urge all states to protect it.

Thank you, Australia. I pass to the Permanent Representative of Montenegro. You have the floor.

Montenegro wishes to reaffirm its strong and principled position – opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances. We firmly believe that the capital punishment is incompatible with fundamental values of human dignity and the right to life. For Montenegro, the abolition of the death penalty is not only a legal commitment, but a reflection of our conviction that justice must always respect human rights. The risk of wrongful convictions can never be entirely eliminated, and in cases involving the death penalty, the consequences are irreversible. We are encouraged by the continued global trend towards abolition, with a growing number of states moving away from the capital punishment. At the same time, the reported increase in executions in 2025 reminds us that progress cannot be taken for granted. Mr. Chair, we appreciate the leadership of Mexico and Switzerland as co-facilitators and the constructive engagement of delegations throughout the negotiations. Together with our partners in the Task Force, we have demonstrated considerable flexibility and made genuine efforts to accommodate different views. and find common ground, including through the introduction of compromise language on sovereignty. While we regret the adoption of Singapore’s amendment despite these efforts, we believe it is important to avoid unnecessary duplication and preserve the coherence of the text. Nevertheless, differences over specific language should not overshadow the central purpose of this resolution: promoting a moratorium on executions with a view to the eventual abolition of the death penalty. We particularly welcome the strengthened emphasis on fair trial guarantees, procedural safeguards, and protection against discrimination, which are essential elements of any justice system. The resolution before us is an important reminder of our shared responsibility to protect human dignity and the right to life. Montenegro will therefore vote in favour of the draft resolution and encourages all delegations to support it. Thank you.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Montenegro. Egypt, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Egypt reiterates its objection of the philosophy underlining this resolution, especially that the death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life. The right to life is a fundamental right upon which the enjoyment of all other human rights rests. Protecting this right necessarily entails addressing serious crimes that threaten the lives and security of societies. International law recognizes the sovereign right of states to determine their own legal systems in accordance with their domestic circumstances and the nature of crime confronting their societies. In this context, the death penalty serves as a deterrent against the most serious crimes. The repeated introduction of this resolution, with the aim of promoting the abolition of the death penalty, disregards the sovereign right of States to determine their own legal frameworks. The reinstatement of the OP.1 with overwhelming majority reflects the recognition of this right. We are also concerned by the continued introduction of elements that focus on the rights and suffering of families of persons sentenced to death, while overlooking the rights of victims of serious crimes and their families, including their right to justice and reparation. Finally, the UN system is founded to bring its Member States together, not for imposition.

For these reasons, Egypt votes against this resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Egypt. Brazil, followed by Republic of Moldova. Brazil.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Brazil thanks the missions of Mexico and Switzerland for their great work on the facilitation of this very important resolution. Today, once again, we have the opportunity to express our true commitment to the right to life, a right that is enshrined in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As in previous years, the draft resolution calls upon States to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to ultimately abolishing the death penalty. We take this opportunity to welcome the work carried out by the countries where no executions have been registered and a moratorium has been applied. Supporting this resolution for a universal moratorium on the use of the death penalty is part of this great commitment. Although the year of 2025 had a very high record of executions, we must recognize and commend the decisions made by an increasing number of States from all regions to apply a moratorium on executions. The death penalty is a cruel and inhumane form of punishment that disproportionately affects the most marginalized members of society. The draft before us notes with deep concern that persons belonging to national, racial, ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities, as well as foreign nationals, among others, are disproportionately likely to face the death penalty. This reflects deeply entrenched patterns of discrimination. Justice systems are not infallible and often reflect the structural racism and discrimination that persists in our societies. Wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice occur around the world, and as a result, wherever the death penalty is imposed, innocent people risk being sentenced to death and executed. Moreover, there is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty has a deterrent effect. Again, this is about the right to life and the respect for human dignity. Brazil, as a member of the IRTF, will vote in favor of this draft resolution and invite all Member States to do the same.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. Republic of Moldova, to be followed by Canada. Moldova.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset, allow me to express our appreciation to the co-facilitators, Switzerland and Mexico, as well as the European Union and other members of the Interregional Task Force for the Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty, for once again presenting the draft resolution L.43 entitled "The moratorium on the use of the death penalty". This resolution represents an important diplomatic commitment to the protection of human life, the prevention of miscarriages of justice, and the avoidance of the irreversible consequences associated with the application of the capital punishment. At the same time, it is important to recall that promoting a moratorium on the use of the death penalty does not in any way question or undermine the right of states to determine their own criminal justice systems, including the penalties applicable under their national legislation. The resolution does not seek to impose a particular criminal justice model, nor does it challenge the prerogative of States to decide on this matter in accordance with their national legal framework and international obligations. Throughout the years of negotiations, the Task Force has demonstrated diplomatic flexibility and willingness to engage constructively, accommodating different perspectives while keeping the resolution aligned with the relevant international developments. This year was no exception. We welcome the inclusion of the reference to the 9th World Congress Against the Death Penalty as another international effort aimed at bringing the subject on the multilateral agenda. We also welcome the language encouraging the formalization of a moratorium where applicable. Overall, the resolution encourages restraint, promotes the application of the highest safeguards and fair trial standards, and call for the death penalty, where it remains in use, to be treated as an exceptional measure. In light of the latest decision, we hope that the language promoted is now satisfactory to a broader UN membership and the resolution will receive higher support and acceptance. The Republic of Moldova will therefore vote in favor of the resolution and encourage other states to do the same. I thank you.

Thank you, Republic of Moldova. Canada, followed by Lebanon. Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As longstanding supporters of the resolution on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty, Canada would also like to express our appreciation to Mexico and Switzerland for their work in bringing forward this important resolution on behalf of the Interregional Task Force. Mr. Chair, Canada opposes the use of the death penalty in all cases, everywhere. This is consistent with Article 6 of the ICCPR, which provides that every human being has the inherent right to life. We welcome the increasing number of states that have implemented de jure and de facto moratoria on the death penalty in their respective countries, and encourage continued progress towards its abolition. Capital punishment is an affront to human rights and dignity, an ineffective deterrent to crime, and it often compounds injustice by intersecting with other forms of discrimination. Where the death penalty is still in use, we advocate for the full respect for international safeguards, including respect for due process of law and fair trials. We expect all States Parties to comply with their international obligations. No system of justice is free from error, and the use of the death penalty can lead to irreversible injustice when those who are not guilty or who have been falsely accused are executed. Mr. Chair, despite the regrettable inclusion of OP 1 and the need for oral amendments, my delegation wishes to indicate that it will indeed continue to vote in favor of this resolution, something we encourage all Member States to do so as well. However, my delegation wishes to dissociate from the amended OP 1. I thank you.

Thank you, Canada. Lebanon, to be followed by Italy, and then finally Bahrain. Lebanon, you have the floor.

Mr. Chair, we are grateful to Mexico and Switzerland for their efforts in facilitating this resolution.

Lebanon is honored to join the co-sponsors of this draft resolution for the first time. This follows our Parliament's vote on the 11th of August, 2026, to abolish the death penalty. That vote marked the culmination of 22 years of a de facto moratorium on executions. Lebanon's experience demonstrates that a moratorium can serve as an effective first step toward abolition.

While executions were suspended, our courts continued to impose sentences commensurate with the gravity of offenses.

In doing so, Lebanon continued to protect public safety and hold offenders accountable without carrying out executions.

Our experience reflects the very path envisaged by this resolution: from moratorium to abolition.

The timing of this transition is.

Particularly significant in light of the circumstances in which it took place, in the midst of armed conflict.

In the midst of an aggression. Destruction, displacement, killing, and the loss of life remain a painful reality, and public institutions remain under immense strain.

Amid such hardship, the State's responsibility to safeguard human life and dignity assumes particular importance. It is precisely when that duty is most urgent that the State must be most resolute in safeguarding human dignity in the exercise of its authority. Thank you.

Thank you, Lebanon. I pass to the Permanent Representative of Italy. You have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Italy aligns with the statement made by the European Union and would like to add some remarks on its national capacity. We wish to express our appreciation to Mexico and Switzerland for their work as co-facilitators of this year's resolution and for their efforts to engage constructively with all Member States. Italy remains firmly committed to the universal abolition of the death penalty, a cruel, inhuman, degrading punishment which serves neither as an effective deterrent nor as a guarantee of greater security, while carrying irreversible consequences in cases of judicial error. Italy has long been at the forefront of the international efforts to promote a global moratorium on the use of the death penalty and its universal abolition. Indeed, in 2007, Italy introduced the first initiative for a moratorium before the General Assembly, which has since adopted biennial resolutions. More recently, in 2024, Italy had the honor of co-facilitating Resolution 79/179, marking another important milestone with unprecedented support from the international community. In this regard, Italy remains actively engaged as a member of the Interregional Task Force and committed to advancing this shared objective. We welcome this year's resolution, which reflects an important effort to build broader support for the moratorium. We would like to underline that the move toward the moratorium and ultimately toward abolition has received support across all regions of the world. This resolution reflects this inclusive, cross-regional spirit and the growing momentum towards a universal moratorium of the death penalty. In this context, we regret the submission of the amendment by Singapore. In our view, the original wording of the resolution already addressed the issue of national sovereignty in a balanced manner. While we take note of the adoption of the amendment, we wish to reiterate Italy's continued support for the principles and objectives underpinning this resolution. We reaffirm our commitment to the progressive achievement of a moratorium and ultimately the abolition of the death penalty. Notwithstanding the positive trend toward abolition, the overall number of executions in a limited number of countries is on the rise. We therefore reaffirm the importance of keeping the UN General Assembly seized on this matter. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Italy. My final speaker in this segment is Bahrain. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's an honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the groups of the GCC, the Gulf Cooperation Council. That's the UAE, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Sultanate of Oman, the State of Qatar, the State of Kuwait, and my country, Bahrain. First off, the countries of the GCC thank the co-facilitators of the draft resolution. And we reaffirm the importance of respecting the sovereignty of states in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The capital punishment is a question that is subject to domestic legislation in the context of the authority of states so as to guarantee the security of their societies in accordance with international law. Thus, we supported the amendment of Singapore. as concerns the sovereign equality of all States as regards their national legislation, including the fact of defining the legal penalties in accordance with international law." I'm speaking of OP 1. That's the first operative paragraph of the amendment that was adopted. "In closing, the States of the GCC reaffirm the importance of respecting the rights of States in accordance with their national legislation. It is our hope that the draft resolutions going forward will respect this principle and will do so from the beginning of the negotiations, so as to arrive at a consensus among Member States. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Bahrain. I have no other speaker seeking the floor. That then takes us to voting on draft resolution L/43 as orally revised and amended. I remind all colleagues of our rules of procedure: no interruption of voting except on a point of order concerning the actual process of voting. Delegations now have an opportunity to indicate their vote.

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution AC/3/81/L.43, entitled “Moratorium on the use of the death penalty”, as orally revised and as amended. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are correctly reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the voting machine.

The result of the vote is: in favour 133, against 33, abstentions 16. As a consequence, draft resolution A/C3/79/L.43, as orally revised and amended, is adopted. Does any delegation wish to make an explanation of vote or general statement following the vote? I have a range of speakers. Let me read out the first tranche: India, Indonesia, Ireland, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Venezuela, Holy See, Gambia, and Japan. And I will go first with the Permanent Representative of Singapore. I don't have the permanent representative of Singapore. In that case, we'll go with India. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank you for the opportunity to explain India's position on the resolution regarding moratorium on the use of death penalty. In India, capital punishment is exercised in the rarest of rare cases where the crime committed profoundly disturbs the society's conscience. A judicial framework encompasses comprehensive constitutional and procedural safeguards, including the fundamental right to a fair trial before an independent judiciary, the presumption of innocence, the guarantee of legal representation, and the provision for review by superior courts. The Indian legal system has explicitly eliminated mandatory capital punishment for all offenses, as such provisions would contravene established judicial discretion in matters concerning death penalty sentences. Furthermore, a legislative framework provides specific provisions for the commutation of death sentences for pregnant women and prohibits the execution of persons with mental disabilities. And under no circumstances, capital punishment is imposed upon juvenile offenders. Mr. Chair, it is imperative to note that all death sentences in India require mandatory confirmation by superior court, irrespective of whether the accused presents an appeal. Additionally, the court recognizes various mitigating factors, including socioeconomic circumstances, psychological conditions, and exceptional life hardships, as grounds for commuting death sentences to life imprisonment. Finally, constitutional provisions vest the President of India, the governors of states, with the authority to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of the punishment within their respective jurisdictions. This authority extends to the suspension, remission, or commutation of death sentences. Mr. Chair, while the present resolution advocates for a moratorium on executions with the ultimate objective of abolishing the death penalty, it fails to acknowledge the fundamental principle of state sovereignty in determining domestic legal frameworks and criminal justice system. Therefore, India supported the amendment A/C.3/81/L.50. And my delegation has voted against the resolution as a whole, as it goes against our statutory law. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, India. Indonesia, followed by Ireland.

Thank you, Chair. We appreciate Mexico and Switzerland as the co-facilitators of this draft resolution for their aspiration to bring consensus among Member States in this issue. During the negotiation, Indonesia consistently underscored the need of a more inclusive and balanced text that respects the diversity as well as legitimate concerns of Member States. We regret that the proposed text is unable to do so. First, Indonesia is unconvinced on the necessity and proportionality of inserting the reference to the Convention against Torture. As a core state of the Convention, we remain concerned that the reference may risk discouraging countries that still retain or apply the death penalty to move toward ratification, and further undermining the fulfillment of the Convention's mandate for universal ratification by 2030. We underscore the legal distinction between the death penalty and torture, and also underline that retaining or applying capital punishment does not, per se, in breach of the Convention against Torture. We reject the invocation of a widely recognized use against norms to advance a narrow political position on matters lacking universal legal consensus. Instead, we call on all states to work collectively towards the fulfillment of the Convention's universal ratification. Second, Indonesia maintains its view that it is both appropriate and necessary to recognize the prerogative of states to determine the pace and manner in which they address the death penalty issue in line with their specific legal, social, and cultural context. States must retain the sovereign right to determine their own criminal justice systems, including the application of death penalty, and any decision to establish a moratorium on executions in accordance with their international law obligations. Chair, Indonesia has limited capital punishment to the most serious crimes. observed a de facto moratorium on execution since 2016 and effectively applied that penalty as a last resort punishment since early this year. Nevertheless, we refrain from voting in favor of this resolution for the reason it retains an exclusionary approach and maintains selective issues championed by a narrow group of countries, thereby undermining the spirit of multilateralism. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Indonesia. I pass to Ireland. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as San Marino align themselves with this statement. The EU and all its Member States are proud members of the Interregional Task Force that presents this biannual resolution in the Third Committee. We thank all Member States who voted yes to this important resolution today. The death penalty is a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment that is incompatible with the inalienable right to life and to human dignity. An ever-growing body of evidence shows that the death penalty remains infected with injustice and used in a discriminatory manner against the poor and the most marginalised in our societies. And any miscarriage or failure of justice in the implementation of the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable. The majority of UN Member States have recognized this and are applying a moratorium on executions either in law or in practice. Last year, while there have been regressive and gravely concerning moves, the number of countries that carried out executions reached the lowest figure on record. At the same time, we are deeply concerned about the alarming and sharp increase in reported executions last year, an increase that has been driven by a few States. But the overall global trend is clear: retentionist countries are becoming fewer and increasingly isolated. The cross-regional support that the moratorium resolution enjoys shows that taking steps towards abolition of the death penalty is not a matter of culture or tradition. States from all regions of the world, with different legal systems, traditions, cultures and religious backgrounds, have ceased executions. It’s a question of political will. and commitment to respect, protect and fulfil all human rights without discrimination. Again, we extend our deep appreciation to the co-facilitators, Mexico and Switzerland, for their hard work and their efforts this year to try and find consensual ground around the resolution. Thank you.

Thank you. Ireland, Sri Lanka, followed by Venezuela.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sri Lanka has maintained a moratorium on the implementation of the death penalty since 1976, a sovereign decision arrived at by the government of the day and continued by successive governments. It is our view that the prescription of the death penalty is a sovereign decision that needs to be taken by a state having regard to its societal norms, the culture, the specific challenges faced by the criminal justice system of the state and its people, and the wishes of the people. Some states have evolved a different societal norms after using the death penalty for centuries to its status of non-use and removal of the death penalty from its statute books. Other states have a debate and an ongoing social discourse in their societies for and against the use of the death penalty. Some states, like Sri Lanka, while having the death penalty in its penal laws, continue to maintain a moratorium. We therefore believe that the imposition of the death penalty is a criminal justice issue that must be assessed in its particular context. It is important that States be allowed to form their own sovereign decision with regard to the death penalty. Accordingly, Sri Lanka voted in favour of the amendment L.50 proposed by Singapore and the resolution L.43 as well.

I thank you.

Thank you, Sri Lanka. Venezuela, followed by Gambia. Venezuela, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela would like to make a general statement on the draft amendment A/C3/81/L.50 and the draft resolution A/C3/81/L.43, moratorium on the use of the death penalty, given its relevance for the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. of the United Nations, rather. We thank delegations who participated in the negotiations. Their willingness to reach understandings on a very complex topic reflected the diversity of visions that coexist within our societies. Finding responses to a question with such deep-rooted historical sources is not a simple task. We acknowledge the work to move this resolution forward that has been presented for over a decade, and we value the international appeal for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with its eventual abolition, definitive abolition. Venezuela is a historical co-sponsor of this resolution. This is required by our constitution in 1999, in its article 43, which enshrines the inviolability of the right to life and explicitly prohibits capital punishment, following a tradition that goes back to the origins of the republic in 1830. Venezuela was the first country in the world to abolish the death penalty for all crimes in 1863, over 160 years ago. Now, with this resolution also, we'd like to thank the delegation of Singapore for its dedication to reach a balanced text that reaffirms the principle of sovereignty of all states to develop their own legal systems. from our national position, respect for sovereignty enshrined in the UN Charter and in the Venezuelan Constitution, in no way contradicts the universal call for a moratorium or even the abolition of the death penalty or the adoption of alternative punishments where this is appropriate. This is why Venezuela understands and defends the principle of sovereignty in its intent and it's in full. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Venezuela. Gambia, followed by Japan. Gambia.

Thank you, Chair. The Gambia is pleased to vote in favour on the resolution on the moratorium of the death penalty, and reaffirms its commitment to the protection of the right to life and human dignity. In keeping with this commitment, the Gambia signed the Second Optional Protocol on 20 September 2017 and imposed a moratorium on the death penalty in February 2018, and we took steps to commit all death sentences to life imprisonment. This step was followed by the ratification of the Second Optional Protocol in September 2018. Consistent with this obligation, we continue to work towards harmonizing our national laws in line with our transitional justice process and human rights standards, and therefore wish to indicate that no provision in our law can be applied to subject any person to the death penalty. The death penalty is no longer provided for in the Criminal Code or as a punishment under the Criminal Penalties Act. Courts, therefore, cannot impose death sentences, and no person can be sentenced to death under our laws. The Gambia maintains that justice can be served through humane and effective alternatives that uphold accountability while respecting the inherent dignity of every individual. We therefore support continued efforts to strengthen the rule of law, ensure fair and impartial trials, and promote policies consistent with international human rights standards. We continue to engage constructively with national, regional and international partners on this issue and to advance measures that protect human life and human dignity. I thank you.

Thank you, Gambia. Japan, followed by Bulgaria.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The existence or abolition of the death penalty and the introduction of a moratorium on executions should be decided by each country after careful consideration based on public opinion, the criminal situation, and the criminal policy. Japan applies the death penalty only to the most serious crimes, does not impose it on those who were under 18 at the time of committing the offense, and halts execution by order of the Minister of Justice in cases where the person sentenced to death is in a state of insanity or is pregnant. In addition, Japan discloses public figures such as the number of people under sentence and the number of executions. Thus, Japan's death penalty system complies with the requirements of the treaties Japan has concluded with respect to the death penalty Japan operates its system strictly and carefully in accordance with due process. Japan therefore voted in favour of the amendment and voted against this draft resolution. Thank you.

Thank you, Japan. Bulgaria, followed by Singapore. Bulgaria.

Thank you, Chair.

Bulgaria aligns with the statement delivered on behalf of the EU. Together with the other members of the Interregional Task Force, we strongly welcome the adoption of this resolution and express our appreciation to all Member States that supported it. The death penalty is incompatible with human dignity and the inherent right to life. It is not an effective deterrent either. This proportionately affects the most vulnerable and carries the ever-present risk of irreversible miscarriages of justice. No judicial system is infallible, and no mistake should cost an innocent person their life. We have heard arguments that abolishing the death penalty may lead to an increase in crime. Such concerns are understandable, but Bulgaria's own experience demonstrates otherwise. Following a moratorium introduced in 1990, Bulgaria abolished the capital punishment on December 12, 1998, nearly 30 years ago. Since then, violent crime has declined rather than increase. The number of intentional homicides has fallen from a high of 5.9 per 100,000 people in 1995 to less than 1.1 per 100,000 people in 2023, an almost six-fold decrease. By comparison, UNODC calculated the global homicide rate at 5.61 per 100,000 people in 2022. We particularly welcome the broad cross-regional support for this resolution, demonstrating that the movement away from capital punishment transcends regional and cultural divides. It forms part of a wider historical progression towards greater respect for human rights, human dignity, as well as equality. We extend our sincere appreciation to our co-facilitators, Mexico and Switzerland, for their dedicated efforts in building broad support for this important resolution.

I thank you.

Thank you, Bulgaria, Singapore, to be followed by our last speaker, the Holy See. Singapore.

Thank you, Chair. The adoption of the amendment has addressed an important omission in the resolution. However, it does not address the fundamental issue that the text has become an exercise in legislative overreach, as it seeks to constrain what is clearly permitted under international law. The fact is that international law does not prohibit the use of the death penalty. Article 62 of the ICCPR specifically provides for its use for the most serious crimes in accordance with due process of law. In our view, this resolution seeks to override national laws legislation, and even the constitution of many sovereign nations. In a multilateral system based on international law, it is not wise or reasonable for any group of countries to keep insisting on their views, to impose their views, or systemically ignore the views of a majority of countries. We ask the proponents to reflect on their approach and revise their approach by respecting the views expressed by a majority of countries. It is for these reasons that Singapore has voted no on the resolution. I thank you.

Thank you, Singapore. Our final speaker is the Holy See. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation thanks the delegations of Mexico and Switzerland and the Interregional Task Force for their leadership throughout the negotiations. The Holy See opposes the death penalty in all circumstances. It is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. This God-given dignity is never forfeited, whatever the gravity of the crime. Pope Leo XIV has voiced the hope that efforts will be made to abolish the death penalty, a measure that destroys all hope of forgiveness and renewal. My delegation is therefore deeply concerned by the surge in reported executions in 2025, and by the fact that more than half were for offences not involving intentional killing, as the resolution recalls. The Holy See welcomes the call upon all States to establish a moratorium with a view to abolition, together with the safeguards on fair trial, legal counsel and clemency, the attention to the minorities, the recognition of the impact on children and families, and the call for transparency. At the same time, my delegation regrets that the language concerning poverty in PP-15 has been weakened and that the wording of the previous resolution has not been retained. Furthermore, the Holy See takes note of the decision to consider this matter again on the 84th session of the General Assembly. In light of the alarming increase in executions, we sincerely hope that this longer interval will not result in diminished attention or in a weakening of the international community's commitment to this important issue. The Holy See therefore encourages all States to strengthen their efforts towards the establishment of a further moratoria, as the essential step towards the ultimate goal of the complete abolition of capital punishment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Holy See that draws us to a conclusion, our consideration of draft resolution L.43 as early revised and amended. I want to bring to Delegations' attention, the fact that the exercise of the right of reply has been requested in accordance with Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. Let me remind delegations that the number of interventions in exercise of the right of reply for any delegation at a given meeting is limited to two per item. The first intervention is limited to five minutes, the second to three minutes. And for that purpose, I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba. You have the floor.

Mr. Chairman, today, this morning, the representative of the United States asked if the Cuban delegation was made-up of doctors. We are young, good people with degrees in international relations, we don't need to be doctors to judge certain statements by the United States regarding Cuba, a country in peace and committed to principles that are not a threat to the United States or any other country, but very firm in its commitment to follow its own path without external interference, as we've done for more than six decades. The United States tried to use this forum as seen to, in its campaign of discrediting and hostility against Cuba, rather than discussing the topics covered by the seven delegations co-sponsored by Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, it once again referred to issues that have nothing to do with this, undermining the seriousness and purpose of these debates. It is offensive that such conduct comes from a state that has made the unilateral use of force a tool of its foreign policy that sustains a machinery of aggression against the Palestinian people and maintains widespread violations against human rights. What we're witnessing is the expression of a concept that is completely incompatible with multilateralism and international law, a power that attributes itself prerogatives above the sovereignty of other states. The United States does not have the moral standing to be a judge of others in human rights or to teach Cuba lessons. We don't accept lessons from those who use human rights to attack others. claim to reserve an exceptionalism for itself. The double standards could not be clearer today. The United States attacks this organization as never before, and it punishes those who do not fulfill its wishes. It's a country that imposes unilateral coercive measures that affect millions of people around the world and their fundamental human rights. It uses xenophobia against immigrants living on its territory, which it deports massively. It seeks to normalize a discourse that is profoundly racist to justify police brutality, killings, and violence against people of African descent. It continues its violence in the Caribbean Sea with extrajudicial killings in its fight against drug trafficking. It's the only high income country without universal health coverage. It intensifies attacks against the reproductive rights The attempts by the United States to present itself as a supposed victim will not be fruitful. The international community is fully aware of the U.S. war against Cuba with the purpose of producing a humanitarian disaster and preventing our country from achieving its goals, systematically and flagrantly violating human rights of the Cuban people, while it denies the blockade against Cuba, which has recently been recognized by the Secretary of State, who said that, and I quote, "What we're trying to do is to make sure that there's no escape." Each time we're creating a mechanism, each time they create a mechanism to free themselves from From the blockade, we're simply squeezing it stronger. They're also imposing an energy siege against us. As a sovereign state and member of this organization, Cuba has the right to present, as any other nation, its positions on topics in the multilateral agenda and draft resolutions that it considers relevant. We will continue to do so, whether the United States likes it or not. We are grateful for the overwhelming support of the international community to the seven draft resolutions presented by Cuba today in this committee, both in its national capacity as well as on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, as well as the positive position with regard to Cuba during these negotiations. Thank you.

Thank you, Cuba. I have no other delegations seeking the floor. That means the Committee has thus completed its programme of work for today and therefore completed our meeting. We will reconvene on Tuesday 17 November at 10 AM in this room to take action on remaining proposals. The meeting is adjourned.