43rd Meeting - 60th Session of Human Rights Council

Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, I declare open the 43rd meeting of the 60th session of the Human Rights Council. We will continue the consideration of draft resolutions and decisions, and I have been informed that the resolutions that are ready to be considered during this meeting will appear on the screen. There we have it. Any impact on the budget and program is available on the extranet.

Finished yesterday while we were considering L21-9. Basically, we finished the speakers list for general comments. I still ask you, is there any delegation asking the floor for general comments on this? I see the… The distinguished representative of Algeria.

Thank you, Chair. My delegation is pleased to take the floor in support of the draft resolution L29 Rev.1. As a country with a long history of anti-colonial struggle, Algeria remains deeply committed to the fight against racism and all form of racial discrimination. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action represent a landmark international framework that provides a comprehensive roadmap to address the root causes and contemporary manifestation of racism and racial injustice. Algeria reiterates its firm support to the DDPA, for the DDPA and for all mechanism established to ensure its effective implementation. We believe that the legacy of slavery, colonialism, apartheid, and foreign occupation continues to have profound impacts on communities around the world. Addressing these injustices through truth, accountability, reparation, and genuine international solidarity is not only a moral imperative, but also a cornerstone of peace, justice, and sustainable development. In this regard, Algeria strongly supports the focus on the issue of reparation. We believe that reparative justice is a vital component of acknowledging historical wrongs and restoring dignity to the victims and their descendants. We recall that the African Union has declared the year 2025 as the African Union theme of the year of justice through reparation, which reflects the growing momentum across the global south to advance concrete action on reparation for colonialism, slavery, and systemic racial discrimination. Mr. President, the rise of xenophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, racism, and discrimination against migrants and persons of African descent is a growing concern in many parts of the world. Algeria believes the Human Rights Council has a critical responsibility to ensure that these issues remain at the forefront of its agenda and to support states in implementing anti-discrimination measures in line with their international obligation. In conclusion, Algeria strongly supports draft resolution L29/Rev.1. and calls on all members of this Council to adopt it by consensus as a reaffirmation of our collective commitment to a world free of racism, intolerance, and injustice. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa.

Thank you, Mr. President. South Africa welcomes the consideration of draft resolution L.29/Rev.1, "From Rhetoric to Reality: A Global Call for Concrete Action Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance." My delegation fully supports the view expressed by the African Group in this Council yesterday that convergence on the anti-racism agenda will send a strong signal of a renewed sense of commitment in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. We note that the first time this initiative was adopted by consensus was in 2019, and we now stand on the cusp of a historic second moment of adopting this resolution by consensus, which we hope will not be the last time. The adoption by consensus of this resolution will be significant as we mark the 60th anniversary of ICERD and stand on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the DDPA. We wish to reiterate the importance of the full and effective implementation of this international framework, as well as resolutions previously adopted by this Council and the General Assembly on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. A critical aspect of this is the imperative for reparations and reparatory justice for Africans and people of African descent, which must go beyond rhetoric to concrete global action, including adherence to the previous commitments made for the full and effective implementation of the DDPA. Africans and people of African descent Victims of slavery, colonialism, and apartheid deserve recognition, justice, and development in line with the commitment made to them when we adopted the program of activities of the decade and proclaimed the second international decade in December 2024 to promote equality and non-discrimination around the world. It is therefore fitting that the African Union has declared 2025 as the year of justice for Africans and people of African descent through reparations. In this context, South Africa fully supports the call on states and regions to work with the AU to identify and fulfill their responsibilities concerning reparations for slavery and colonialism. As I conclude, Mr. President, South Africa joins the appeal to members of this Council to adopt this resolution by consensus. I thank you.

Thank you. I don't see any other requests for the floor to make general comments. I have been informed by the Secretariat that there are PBIs for this draft proposal. The PBIs amount to a total of $582,300. Of this amount, $342,800 have already been included under the program budget for the relevant years. $239,500 will need to be added to the budget. I now give the floor to members of the Council who wish to make explanations of votes before the vote on the draft proposal. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cyprus.

Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the EU member states that are members of the Human Rights Council. This statement has been agreed by the EU as a whole. The EU reaffirms its steadfast commitment in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, as evidenced by the EU's anti-racism action plan, which will soon be revamped into a fully fledged EU anti-racism strategy. The EU remains committed to advancing the multilateral anti-racism agenda, as too many individuals around the world are discriminated on the basis of their race, coming from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds. This work goes hand in hand with our fight against anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim hatred, and all other forms of discrimination. It is in this spirit that the EU will join a consensual adoption on this resolution. Mr. President, allow us, however, to clarify our position. The EU considers that the multilateral anti-racism agenda remains grounded in the agreed language of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action. This also applies to language that seeks redress for some of the most appalling chapters in human history, such as colonialism, slavery, and the slave trade, for which the EU fully acknowledges the tragic and lasting consequences. The EU therefore reiterates its alignment to the DDPA, also reaffirming the position expressed in its adoption, and namely that no language contained therein can affect the general legal principle that precludes the retrospective application of international law in matters of state responsibility. These concerns refer in particular to PP20 and OP8. No other language consensually adopted in this resolution should be interpreted to go beyond such principles expressed in the DDPA. Furthermore, the EU accepts the additions made to this resolution that are taken verbatim from the DDPA. This includes the reference to code Islamophobia, end of code, while reiterating that the use of this language is specific to the context of the DDPA and should not be considered as consensus in other domains. Finally, The EU wishes to thank the African group for the constructive engagement held throughout the negotiations. We consider a consensual adoption as a stepping stone towards more concerted action to increase the impact of the anti-racism mechanisms through a more strategic allocation of resources at our disposal. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll give the floor to the distinguished representative of Germany.

Thank you, Mr. President. We align ourselves with the statement just delivered by the European Union. Let me add in our national capacity the following. We thank the African group for their important work on this resolution, and we would like to reiterate our strong commitment to global efforts against racism, racial discrimination, and anti-Semitism. As a country with a painful history of state-sponsored racism and anti-Semitism, Germany remains committed to implementing the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action. Racism, anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred continue to be a reality all over the world, Germany being no exception. People of colour and especially people of African descent still face discrimination, racial profiling, hate and violence. in Germany today. The rise of anti-Semitic hate speech and acts of violence around the world, including in Germany, is of special concern to us. We therefore welcome the inclusion of new language in PP13 bis, referring to the need to take effective action against the increase in anti-Semitism around the world. Let me also stress Germany recognizes its historical responsibility, and we actively address the legacy of our colonial past. This includes independent scientific research that investigates Germany's colonial policy and draws consequences for our foreign policy today, as well as the naming and recognizing the injustices that have been committed. For example, Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier asked for forgiveness during a state visit to Tanzania in November 2023. Germany also supports the return of cultural artifacts and ancestral remains from colonial contexts. Having said that, we would like to stress that the inclusion of language into the text before us relating to reparations and reparatory justice for colonialism and transatlantic slave trade does not reflect the status of contemporary international law. Despite this, we are also ready to join consensus on this resolution. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. I'll give the floor to the distinguished representative of Spain.

Thank you, sir. Spain would like to endorse the statement of the EU on resolution L29, and we would like to sincerely thank the African Group for their constructive approach in the negotiations about the draft. Racism and xenophobia affect the very core of societies in all countries. belittling the fundamental value of tolerance and hurting coexistence. In our view, true equality calls for proactive, anti-racist public policies and structural changes as well as recognition and participation of the historically marginalized communities. We believe that it is essential to take on the fight against all types of discrimination with an intersectoral approach, with particular care for the the problems that women of African descent face. The history of cultures are the results of many different contributions. We are all the product of a mix. We hope to have pluralistic, open societies that look both to the past and to the future in order to heal wounds that have not been nursed yet. We recognize the suffering that has been produced and continue to be produced nowadays by activities aim to impose by violence, pressure, or isolation a so-called purity or superiority of peoples, races that believe themselves to be the chosen one or better than others. Anti-Semitism is such a form. And today, October 7, we cannot forget the victims of the horrible atrocities perpetrated on this day in 2023. And we call for the freeing of the hostages that continue. to be held. We reiterate our commitment to effective multilateralism, one in which the International Convention on the Elimination Against All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Declaration and Plan of Action of Durban continue to be cornerstones in our collective action against structural and systemic racism. Spain is working internationally. In December 2020, for my country, welcomed in Barcelona the fourth installment of the Global Forum Against Racism and Discrimination of UNESCO. Our international action for the global system for inclusive development, as has been seen in the Seville Declaration, is also proof of our commitment to upending inequalities. As the High Commissioner has said, there's no single formula that could be used to face the issues of the past, but we do have international human rights law on our side that can be used as a compass in our discussion. And this is also fed into by the work of the mechanisms of this Council, which is why Spain is pleased to join the consensus on this resolution as part of our commitment towards a global alliance against racism. Thank you.

I will give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belgium.

Thank you, Mr. President. In addition to the EU statement, let me make some remarks in my national capacity. We thank the African Group for presenting draft resolution L29 Rev. 1. Belgium is strongly committed to combating all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, whether that be at home or abroad. No one should be subjected to discrimination, violence or intimidation because of their origin or skin color. As we approach the 25th anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, I wish to reaffirm my country's attachment to this milestone document. Belgium played an active role during the 2001 Durban Conference, contributing to the adoption of the DDPA in our capacity then as President of the Council of Ministers of the European Union. My country continues to strive for the full and effective implementation of the DDPA. However, the text before us goes far beyond what was agreed in Durban, especially with regard to reparations. We disagree with the approach taken and regret that it was not possible to take on board all views on a joint way forward. I remain hopeful that in future it will be possible to achieve a different outcome, namely a unified and forward-looking approach to combat racism. I thank you.

Thank you. I don't see any other request for the floor at this point. Is there a request for a vote? I see none. May I take it that draft proposal L29-REF1 may be adopted without a vote? It is so decided. Thank you very much. The Council will now consider draft proposal L12 entitled Question of the Death Penalty. I give the floor to the representatives of the Republic of Moldova and Switzerland to introduce the draft proposal.

Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honor to introduce the draft resolution L.12 on the question of the death penalty on behalf of Belgium, Benin, Costa Rica, France, Mexico, Mongolia, Switzerland, and my own country, the Republic of Moldova. The document has so far gained the support of 62 co-sponsors. We would like to thank all the delegations for their active and committed participation during the extensive informal consultations. As you know, the primary objective of this biennial resolution is to have a substantial exchange on the issue of the death penalty from a human rights perspective. In doing so, our core group seeks to move the discussion beyond the well-known national positions on the issue of death penalty and focus on the human rights implications on the use of the capital punishment. This year, it will focus primarily on the right to equality before the law and highlighted a number of requirements to ensure the principles of equality of arms. The resolution stresses the importance for states to respect these procedural rights in the use of the death penalty. It also calls on states to put an end on the mandatory death penalty, a practice that leaves no discretion to the sentencing court. We further introduced for the first time new elements on the role of civil society and on the specific type of discrimination affecting the sentencing of women and girls. We also recall the fact that the use of death penalty leads to human rights violation. I thank you.

Just as every time we present this resolution, we make efforts to... recall that this resolution does not call for the abolition of the moratorium on the death penalty. The subject is to introduce human rights when applying the death penalty, and this is something that we should all be concerned with. We know that this approach does not satisfy everyone's expectations. Some believe that the text does not go far enough because it does not condemn the death penalty as such. Others, in particular some States that continue to impose the death penalty believe that this statement, this resolution, is hostile to them. Nevertheless, we hope that we have engaged in a constructive approach to prepare the ground to have a further discussion on this in the Human Rights Council. With respect to the Core Group, we have always sought A constructive approach and there were major concessions made with the goal of achieving A well-balanced document. We regret the... 4 amendments attempting to weaken and undermine the main thrust of the resolution. We hope that this Council will adopt the decision as proposed.

The representative of Singapore to introduce written amendments L36, L58 and L59. I would kindly request the representative to introduce all amendments on the understanding that each amendment will be acted upon separately. You have the floor.

Mr. President, I have the honor to introduce amendments L.36, 58, and 59. This year's resolution on the question of the death penalty looks into the right of equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial for persons facing the death penalty. Singapore is a staunch supporter of international law, fully agrees that this right must be respected. However, we are disappointed that this is not, in fact, the focus of the resolution. Despite the core group's assurances that the resolution is not about the abolition of the death penalty, it's clear from the text this is precisely its intent. It's undisputed that the death penalty is not prohibited under international law. The core group say they accept this. There are diverse opinions and state practice around the world in relation to the death penalty. A cross-regional group of countries, including Singapore, engaged in good faith with the hope of bringing some balance to the text. We regret the core group has not accepted our amendments, which were aimed at only correcting the numerous misrepresentations of international law in the text and ensuring factual accuracy. L36, our amendment L36 reaffirms the sovereign right of states to develop their own legal systems. This new wording is necessary because the whole text overreaches itself, imposing the values and opinions of certain states on others. with no respect to the actual state of international law nor the diversity of state practice on this matter. The amendment tracks the language of the UN General Assembly resolution on the death penalty adopted for the fifth consecutive time by a majority of UN member states at the 79th UNGA. Our amendment today enjoys more than 40 co-sponsors and counting. To be clear, this amendment in no way suggests that states can invoke domestic law to justify noncompliance with their international obligations. On the contrary, it reaffirms the sovereign right of states to develop their own legal penalties and, I quote, in accordance with their international law obligations. L58, next, on amendment L58, the text asserts that the term most serious crimes to which a death penalty can apply has consistently been interpreted as pertaining only to crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing. It passes off this definition as an internationally agreed definition. This isn't true. Furthermore, saying that the term has consistently been interpreted willfully disregards state practice and jurisprudence of dozens of states that have constantly applied capital sentences to other extremely serious crimes in a national context. Together, these states represent more than half the world's population. Can the core group claim an interpretation to be consistent when it ignores the interpretations of half the world? Instead, PP11 is drawn from opinions expressed by the Human Rights Committee in its general comments, which is not legally binding. They are opinions. Finally, L59, our amendment L59 seeks to factually attribute the first half of PP28 to the Human Rights Committee. Since we are lapsed, I will conclude.

I now.

Give the floor to the representative of Algeria on behalf of the Group of Arab States to introduce written.

Thank you, Chair.

Sorry. Sorry about that. You can continue.

L59. Our amendment L59 simply seeks to factually attribute the first half of PP28 to the Human Rights Committee. This is necessary. because the text otherwise presents this as an accepted international obligation, when it is just a non-binding opinion. The amendment also seeks to delete the second-half of PP28, which makes the incorrect assertion that the use of the mandatory death penalty is always arbitrary and inconsistent with the right to a fair trial and the right to life. Such bare assertions with no legal basis should have no place here. International law does not prohibit the application of the mandatory death penalty. This is reflected in the consistent state practice of scores of countries. Finally, these three amendments are necessary to preserve the HRC's credibility, and this is more important than ever before. HRC resolutions should not be sources of fictional representations of states' international obligations. HRC's resolutions should not be an avenue for some states to force their opinions on others under the guise of human rights. We urge all HRC members who value the principle of sovereignty, the upholding of international law, the fact that we are behind nameplates, and the principle of mutual respect for the diversity of states to vote yes to L.36, L.58, and L.59. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Thank you. I apologize again for the interruption. And I'll give the floor to the representative of on behalf of the Group of Arab States to introduce written amendment L.39.

Thank you, Chair. I have the honor to introduce amendment L.39 to draft resolution L.12 entitled "Question of Death Penalty" on behalf of the members of the Group of Arab States. These amendments pertain to Preambular Para 24, which currently reads, "Strongly deploring the fact that the use of the death penalty leads to violation of the human rights of the persons facing the death penalty and of other affected persons." Mr. President, The group expressed its serious concerns regarding the formulation of this paragraph, which asserts that the mere use of the death penalty leads to violation of human rights. Such a categorical statement does not accurately reflect international law, nor the current state of play of international legal jurisprudence pertaining to the use of death penalty. First, as enshrined in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, there is no prohibition of the death penalty. Its use remain legally permissible under strict condition, including limitation to the most serious crimes, imposition only following a final judgment rendered by a competent court, full respect for due process and fair trial guarantees. A general assertion that the use of the death penalty systematically results in human rights violation is therefore inconsistent with the legal framework established under the ICCPR and risks misrepresenting the legal obligation of state parties. Second, while we acknowledge the growing international trend towards restriction or abolition of the death penalty, it remains a fact that international law permits retention of the death penalty under the aforementioned condition, and that it is the sovereign right of states to choose their legal penal code in accordance to their specific context and circumstances, and in line with their obligation under international law. The current language risks conveying a message of blanket condemnation, which may be interpreted as an attempt to delegitimize sovereign legal systems that apply to the death penalty in conformity with international obligation. In this context, the Arab Group proposed the following amendment to paragraph 24 to read strongly deploring the fact that the use of the death penalty could lead to violation of the human rights of the person facing the death penalty and of other affected persons. This revised formulation preserves the emphasis on human rights concerns in accordance with the stated objective of the resolution, while aligning the language with international legal norms and maintaining the neutrality and credibility of the resolution.

Thank you.

Mr. President, let -- I will now -- - constructive engagement on this text and this proposal, the -- Thank you very much.

I'll now turn to Switzerland to seek the views of the person of the sponsors of the amendments.

It is on Mexico to take the floor, sorry.

Mexico, you have the floor.

Thank you, sir. On behalf of the presenters of the draft resolution L.12, we reject all amendments, given that they go against the spirit and the goal of this resolution. We request a vote on all amendments. We will vote against, and we urge other members of the Council to do likewise and vote against. Thank you.

Thank you. I have been informed by the Secretariat that there are eight additional co-sponsors to draft proposal L.12 as reflected on e-delegate. I now give the floor to members of the Council who wish to make general comments on draft proposal L.12 and on written amendments L.36, L.39, L.58, and L.59. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Benin.

Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, Benin is pleased to continue its commitment within the core group of co-authoring countries of the two-year resolution in the Council on the death penalty. This commitment started from the implementation of a process that led to the constitutional abolishment of the death penalty in Benin in 2019 following a long moratorium, followed itself by a ratification of the Second Optional Protocol in 2017. And armed with this abolitionist past, we take pleasure in the progress made in the universal abolition of the death penalty, particularly in Africa, since the adoption of Resolution 5435 of the Council of October 13, 2023. Draft L.12 is an update of it. The goal of this initiative should be recalled and underscored. The resolution simply seeks to promote, in keeping with the mandate of the Council, the respect and the promotion of the human rights of people sentenced to death, where the death penalty continues to be used. Guided by relevant resolutions of the latest report of the Secretary General on the death penalty presented during this session, Draft L.12 proposes to go deeper into the five-year report of the Secretary General and look at the consequences that the right the death penalty has on the right to non-discrimination regarding damning evidence that makes it believe that people coming from minority groups or defavorized groups, vulnerable group, are more likely to be sentenced to death. Every country is, of course, free to choose when and how to take the path towards the universal abolition of the death penalty, but the respect of human rights compels all of us to go down that path, and it requires a constructive debate at all stages, from the sentencing to the use of that sentence, which is why we urge members of the Council to adopt as is draft L.12 by consensus on behalf of our main responsibility or in the name of our main responsibility to protect human rights throughout the world. Thank you.

Cyprus.

Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the EU member states that are members of the Human Rights Council. This general comment has been agreed by the EU as a whole. The fight for the universal abolition of the death penalty is an integral part of the EU's human rights policy. The EU recalls its unwavering opposition to the death penalty at all times and under all circumstances. Capital punishment violates the inalienable right to life of every person and makes any miscarriage of justice irreversible. The focus of this year's resolution on the equality of arms, inter alia, the right of every person to be defended in courts on an equal footing with the opposing party, is as elementary as it is crucial. In addition, it maintains strong language on important issues, including on the trends towards abolition, the barring of reinstatement of the death penalty, and the restrictive definition of, quote, most serious crimes, end of quote. In line with its principled position, the EU would have welcomed a stronger text. We are, however, convinced by the importance of the efforts carried out by the cross-regional core group to try to advance human rights on the question of the death penalty through a staggered and thematic approach. We therefore understand that the core group made every effort to accommodate divergent views. In this context, we deeply regret the hostile amendments that have been tabled. In a text focused on human rights, States yet again tried to put their so-called code sovereign right, end of code, on the foreground. While we agree on the fact that states have the right to develop their legal systems, we also believe this cannot be used to justify human rights violations. National legislation cannot override international human rights obligations. Yet again, They tried to question the limitation of the scope of the most serious crimes, a well-established concept under international law that covers only crimes of extreme gravity that involve intentional killing, as well as the attempt to justify the use of the mandatory death penalty in arbitrary practice incompatible with the right to a fair trial. Fully committed to meeting human rights obligations and gravely concerned by the human rights implications of the use of the death penalty, and inspired by the worldwide trend towards the universal abolition of the death penalty, which is being joined by an ever-increasing number of countries, the EU member states that are members of the Council will vote yes on the resolution and vote no on all amendments. We call on others to do the same. I thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. I'll give the floor to the distinguished representative of Iceland.

Mr. President. Iceland thanks the core group for the work on resolution L12 and for their inclusive and consultative approach to negotiations. Iceland is a longstanding co-sponsor of this initiative, which addresses a matter of fundamental human rights concern. Iceland opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and for all people. We believe, as a matter of principle, that the death penalty has no place in the 21st century. It brutalizes human society, is degrading, and is an affront to human dignity. We remain firmly committed to its universal abolition and welcome that the number of abolitionist states grows with each year. This resolution rightly reaffirms that where the death penalty is still applied, strict compliance with international human rights standards is essential. We welcome this year's focus on the concept of equality of arms. Fair trials cannot exist without it, and when denied, the risk of wrongful convictions is profound. In capital cases, such violations result in irreversible miscarriages of justice. We also value the resolution's attention to the disproportionate impact on marginalized groups and minorities, as well as the discrimination women and girls face in the justice system, particularly in capital punishment cases. Iceland urges all members to support draft resolution L.12 and opposes all amendments set forward. And in a case of a vote on the draft, Iceland will vote in favor. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Albania.

Thank you, Mr. President. Albania thanks the core group for its work on resolution L12 and for its open and consultative approach to the negotiation, particularly in the context of this crucial issue. This resolution pursues one main objective, to reaffirm and strengthen international human rights standards and obligations that states must strictly observe and respect in situations where the death penalty continues to be applied. Today, it is a fact that a large number of people from marginalized social economy groups and belonging to minorities are disproportionately affected and discriminated against by the death penalty. We oppose the application of the death penalty in all circumstances and for everyone. We believe, as a matter of principle, that the death penalty has no place in the 21st century. It brutalizes human society, is degrading, and constitutes an affront to human dignity. We must not forget that the use of the death penalty is more than national debate or a matter of sovereignty. It is, above all, a human rights issue. Albania reiterates its commitment to the universal abolishing of the death penalty. Many other members of this Council share this view, and we are pleased to note that the number of abolitionist states worldwide is increasing every year. Finally, Albania urges all members to support draft resolution L12 and opposes any amendments. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative.

Thank you, Mr. President. Brazil thanks the core group for its work on resolution L.12 and for the constructive approach to negotiations, including the thematic focus on the principle of equality of arms. We express our firm opposition to the death penalty for all crimes. as it constitutes a flagrant violation of the right to life and is incompatible with the principles of human dignity and due process. Brazil commends the growing number of countries that have committed to the moratorium of the death penalty and calls upon those that have not yet done so to adhere to it forthwith. This new iteration of this important resolution highlights the fact that people from socioeconomically marginalized groups and belonging to minorities are disproportionately affected by the death penalty. We welcome the topic of the next report on the right to non-discrimination with a specific focus on the intersection of socioeconomic vulnerabilities, racial discrimination, and discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, language, and nationality. Brazil gladly co-sponsored this initiative and calls upon all members to support draft resolution L.12. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Chile.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Chile appreciates the presentation of draft resolution on the question of the death penalty, which we have co-sponsored. The debate which was held during the informal consultations is proof that the use of the capital punishment is a complicated issue with many legal, social and ethical considerations. In the framework of these meetings, there was a question about the contributions of the Human Rights Committee through its general comments. Chile would like to underscore our support to these documents, as we see them as interpretative documents coming from a group of experts on the subject that have been mandated to oversee the implementation of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In that context, we would like to point to two items that we believe are essential in this debate. First, we underscore the complete prohibition of using the death penalty for children and adolescents. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as Article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, clearly establishes the prohibition of using the death penalty for an offense perpetrated by someone under the age of 18. Chile notes with great concern the trend of using the death penalty for those found of having been guilty of offenses during their childhood, which is why we appreciate that this resolution has this progressive interpretation of international human rights law. Second, and in keeping with what is in General Observation 36 of the Human Rights Committee, Chile appreciates that the resolution underscores the importance of legal discretion when imposing sentences, when reviewing them or commuting them in cases of capital punishment. The use of mitigating factors and using alternative sanctions are essential tools to limit the use of this punishment and reduce its scope. This is consistent with the principles of proportionality, the respect for life and human dignity, and is fully aligned to the international commitments in the area of human rights. By cosponsoring this resolution, Chile reiterates its commitment to continue to move towards the universal abolition of the death penalty, and we encourage member states to support this document. We also call to vote no to all amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cote d'Ivoire.

Thank you, sir. Cote d'Ivoire would like to thank the core countries behind this resolution on the question of the death penalty. The death penalty violates the fundamental principles of human dignity and the right to life. It exposes them to unacceptable risks of discriminatory practice and potential abuse. Many studies and experiences of states show that it does not have a deterrent effect better than normal sentence behind bars. Sir, the right to life cannot be subjected to uncertainty nor to discrimination. Protecting it is an essential duty of states and a pillar of any justice-based society, one that respects human rights. My delegation has espoused these values by abolishing the death penalty since 2000. Additionally, Cote d'Ivoire has ratified the second optional protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This protocol entered into force August 3, 2024, and it makes my country the 91st country party to this instrument and the 17th in Africa. My country would like to take this opportunity to invite all states to consider this resolution on the question of the death penalty not as a limitation, but rather as an opportunity to strengthen the universality of human rights, to consolidate and to have more fair legal systems, and to have alternatives to it in keeping with international law. We also encourage improved technical cooperation and sharing experiences in order to assist countries transitioning away from the death penalty. Aware of national context and sensibilities, we remain convinced that dialogue and cooperation and consensus-seeking is the best way forward, which is why Cote d'Ivoire would like to invite, with all due respect, states of the Council to support the adoption of the present resolution in order to convey a strong message in favor of human dignity and justice. Thank you.

Distinguished representative of Costa Rica.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. We would like to endorse the delegations of Moldova and Switzerland's statement. The goal of this initiative is to contribute to the discussion that the impact that that penalty has on human rights and those people facing this penalty, as well as the impact that it has on their families and others that might be impacted by it. Mr. President, in Costa Rica, the death penalty was never a local institution. It was a colonial legacy. Like in most countries that still resort to it today, the death penalty is a hangover from the colonial age that still remains alive in the 21st century. And I say that with all due respect, because as this delegation says year after year, in 1882, as part of our independence, President Tomas Guardia decided to abolish the death penalty, doing away once and for all with this colonialist past. 140 years have transpired since that day, and we are aware that overall, There are still some differing points of views about the death penalty, which is precisely why this draft resolution focuses on human rights, which is a universal principle. This year, one of the requests of this resolution looks at the most recent progress, strategies, best practices, and alternative approaches to reduce the scope of applicability of the death penalty and limit its use. The core group of proposing countries further decided to call for an analysis of the right to non-discrimination vis-a-vis the use of the death penalty, focusing on the multiple ways of discrimination, paying particular attention to social economic inequalities and racial discrimination, among others. Mr. President, during the negotiations, we listened with great attention and with much respect to all opinions, and we managed to make changes to this document so that we could have its current balanced version that maintains the spirit of the initiative intact, which is why I encourage all members of the Council to support this draft. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Algeria.

Thank you, Mr. President. Algeria has maintained a de facto moratorium on executions since 1993. In Algeria, the death penalty is only pronounced in a limited number of extreme and heinous crimes that gravely shock the public conscience, such as those involving the rape, torture, or killing of children. This carefully circumscribed application seeks to uphold public order, protect the most vulnerable, and prevent individuals from restoring to vigilant Justice, we firmly believe that any meaningful dialogue on death penalty must fully respect the cultural, legal, and societal context of each state. In this regard, Algeria advocates for a gradual, inclusive, and respectful approach to this complex issue, one that balances national sovereignty with constructive engagement and promotes understanding rather than imposition. On a matter of principle, Algeria also recalls that general comments issued by treaty Treaty bodies are non-binding and should be regarded as interpretative guidance rather than authoritative legal instrument. While we value the expertise of treaty bodies and welcome their contributions to human rights discourse, we reject any attempt to endorse or elevate these opinions to the level of binding obligations. In this context, Algeria considers that the proposed amendments bring much-needed balance, nuance, and legal accuracy to the text. These revisions allow for a more realistic and respectful approach that accommodates the diverse legal systems and perspective of member states. Accordingly, Algeria will support the amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't see any other requests for the floor. I have been informed by the Secretariat that there are PBIs for this draft proposal, which amount to a total of $139,000. This amount has already been included under the programme budget for the relevant years. We will now take action on each of the amendments one by one in order of submission, and we will then take action on the text as a whole, as amended or not. We will now proceed to take action on the amendment L36. I give the floor to Council members for explanations of votes before the vote on draft amendment I would like to inform the Council that Indonesia withdrew its co-sponsorship for this draft proposal as reflected in e-delegate and can therefore intervene on this text. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Indonesia.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Throughout the consideration of draft resolution L12, Indonesia has consistently underscored the need for a more balanced text, one that

respect the diversity of national legal system and domestic context and recognizes the absence of international consensus on capital punishment. We appreciate the core group's effort to bridge different views. However, we remain concerned with the exclusion of the proposal contained in amendment L.136, which reaffirms the sovereign right of all states to develop their own legal system. The L.136 amendment does not contest the universal nature of human rights, nor does it seek to exempt states from their international obligation Rather, it preserve the necessary balance between the promotion of human rights and the respect for national sovereignty. This balance lies at the heart of the United Nations. Without the inclusion of operative paragraph 1 bis as proposed, the draft resolution closes the door to a constructive discussion on the application of the death penalty. Mr. President, as a state party to the ICCPR, Indonesia has limited capital punishment to the most serious crimes in accordance to its national law, emphasizing on judicial discretion and safeguards. At the same time, Indonesia have observed A de facto moratorium on execution since 2016. In our new criminal code, scheduled to enter into force in December 2025, capital punishment is no longer a principal penalty. Death penalty will be a conditional and alternative punishment with possible commutation. Our national development showcases that it is both appropriate and necessary to recognize the prerogative of states to determine the pace and manner in which they address these issues in line with their specific legal, social, and cultural contexts. States must retain the sovereign right to determine their own criminal justice systems, including the application of the death penalty and any decision to establish a moratorium on executions. We therefore will vote in favor of amendment L.36 to bring greater balance and respect for national context and urge

others to do so.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Chile.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Chile would like to address amendment L.36. Though state sovereignty is the very core of a modern state, its foundation lies in people. Sovereignty is not an end in of itself, but rather a means to protect dignity and the rights of those that comprise the political group. Over time, this concept has evolved, going from an absolute state-based notion to one that links it with responsibility. Today, sovereignty gains strength and becomes legitimate when it is used in order to protect human rights. From the lessons we drew from the Second World War, we understand that human right guarantees place limits on a state's behavior, even as regards events that take place within its borders. Human rights are just that. They're a limit to a state's power. They're a safeguard from potential arbitrariness. And with this understanding, my delegation rejects the proposal, for we deem it contrary to the spirit behind the creation of this council. To include a reference to sovereignty in this text would be tantamount to suggesting that domestic systems are above international obligations of states, or even that defining human rights standards on the use of the death penalty would constitute a violation of state sovereignty. This not only runs against the spirit of the resolution, but also against fundamental principles of international law. It is states themselves who, exercising their sovereignty, choose their actions by taking on international obligations in the area of human rights, which is why respecting human rights has never been foreign meddling. but rather following sovereignly accepted commitments by States, which also apply to those guilty of the most heinous crimes. Sir, during informal consultations, we heard time and again that international law does not prohibit the death penalty. This statement, though legally correct, does not recognize that Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights must be interpreted in the light of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention in good faith and in light of its purpose, the protection of the right to life, which is why any reference seeking to justify the use of capital punishment as part of a state exercising its sovereignty take steps away from the international standards that states themselves have accepted. It is unacceptable, then, that such a document comes from the Council.

As a member of the core group of this resolution, Belgium deeply regrets the introduction of this amendment, and this for the sixth time. We urge all members of the Council to vote against the proposed amendment, which is both unnecessary and misleading. The draft resolution already reaffirms the sovereign rights of states in its opening paragraph, in line with Article 2 of the UN Charter. The amendment, therefore, adds nothing new and risks undermining the resolution's core purpose, the protection of human rights in the context of the death penalty. This amendment seeks to polarize the debate, shifting focus from essential human rights concerns to a false dichotomy between abolitionist and retentionist positions. It mischaracterizes the resolution, which, as stated many times, does not challenge the legality of national penalties, but rather emphasizes the human rights obligations states must uphold, particularly under Article 6 of the ICCPR. Referring to national law as a shield against international scrutiny contradicts the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which prohibits invoking internal law to justify noncompliance with treaty obligations. Accepting this amendment would set a dangerous precedent, allowing similar language to dilute future resolutions on other issues. Moreover, the phrase in accordance with their international law obligations does not resolve the ambiguity. It opens the door to interpretations that national sovereignty can override human rights commitments, especially in the sensitive context of capital punishment. The resolution does not compel states to abolish the death penalty or alter their legal systems. It calls for respect for due process and procedural safeguards for those facing execution, upholding those standards is not a limitation of sovereignty, but a fulfillment of international legal duties. For these reasons, we strongly oppose amendment L.36 and call on all delegations to preserve the integrity of the resolution by voting against it. I thank you.

Thank you. I don't see any other requests for the floor. At the request of the delegation of Mexico, the Council will now proceed to a recorded vote on L.36. I ask the Secretariat to open the voting machine, and I ask delegations to register their vote. I request delegations to check whether their vote is accurately reflected on the screen. If so, I ask the Secretariat to close the voting machine. The voting is now closed. The results of the recorded votes are as follows: 15 in favour, 22 against, 10 abstentions. Amendment L.36 is therefore rejected. A copy of the results of the votes will shortly be posted on the Extranet. We will now proceed to take action on the amendment L.39. I give the floor to Council members for explanations of votes before the vote on draft amendment L.39. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Colombia.

Thank you, Mr. President. With deep sense of appreciation for the distinguished members of this Council, but also with a great deal of respect and speaking quite candidly, for Colombia it is not advisable to have amendment L.39, presented by the distinguished delegation of Algeria, representing the Arab Group, to the draft resolution L.12 on the death penalty. The paragraph which seeks to be amended has remained intact since it was first considered in 2015. It has never been amended to date. Changing its content now would mean watering down agreed-upon language that was carefully built in this Council. The amendment tries to relativize something that has been broadly documented. The use of the death penalty leads to the violations of the human rights of those sentenced and other people affected by it, among them the right to life, the right to a fair trial, the right to non-discrimination, including a racial discrimination, the right to equality before the courts, and the right to family life. And though the death penalty is not formally prohibited by international law, as we would hope and wish, its implementation is not compatible with the fundamental right to life. It must be said that the resolution does not assert that the death penalty is in and of itself a violation of human rights. What it does say, in no ambiguous terms, is that its use has led to and continues to lead to various documented violations in all regions. The term "leads to" in the indicative in the draft resolution is not really conditional at all. It shows a reality. Death penalty does lead to, not would lead to, consistent violations of human rights. And to say would lead to, could lead to, as proposed by the amendment, would unduly weaken the strength of the text and would obfuscate the facts, which is why we voted against Amendment L.39 and called on other members of the Council to reject it and to stand by their commitment for human rights and the inner consistency of this important text. Thank you.

Lord, the distinguished representative of France.

Thank you, Mr. President. France is proud to have contributed to the core group's draft, which is dense but always consistent on the death penalty, which took place during this session. You know that this topic is a priority. of France, which held which will hold the World Conference Against the Death Penalty in 2026. As Colombia said, there is no point in changing terms that have not been changed since this draft was first presented and to which no amendment was previously made. The death penalty is a violation of human rights of those who are convicted and of others close to them. As the representative of Chile said earlier, the framework defined by the ICCPR in Article 6 is of importance and we would like to refer to the High Commissioner's words in 2025, the death penalty is difficult to reconcile with human dignity. It can amount to cruel and degrading treatment. The death penalty is a violation of human rights which is cumulative, the first of which is the right to life, but also in many other frameworks, the right to due trial, non-discrimination with a gender perspective or equality before the courts. These violations were highlighted long ago by civil society, but also by the recent report of the UN Secretary-General. which was presented to this Council session. And this is the reason for which France calls to vote against this amendment and calls on other states to do likewise and to support the adoption of this resolution. Thank you.

I don't see any other request for the floor. At the request of the delegation of Mexico, the Council will now proceed to a recorded vote on L39. I ask the Secretary to open the voting machine, and I ask all delegations to register their vote. I ask delegations to check whether their vote is accurately reflected on the screen. If so, I ask the Secretariat to close the voting machine. The voting is now closed. The results of the recorded votes are as follows. 16 in favour, 24 against, 7 abstentions. Amendment L39 is therefore rejected. A copy of the results of the votes will shortly be posted on the extranet. We will now proceed to take action on amendment L58. I give the floor to Council members for explanations of votes before the vote on draft amendment L58. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Costa Rica.

This amendment tries to interpret the term more serious crimes only for the Human Rights Council and the UN Secretary-General. Using this approach denies that during decades, local courts, national courts, and regional courts, for example, the African Court of Human Rights and Peoples, have interpreted this term in an ongoing, consistent way within their own jurisprudence, that is, referring to very serious crimes such as intentional homicide. The amendment ignores this consolidated jurisprudence of courts from every corner of the world, the precise language of the resolution which underscores that more serious offenses be interpreted consistently and restrictively as if it were to apply exclusively to very, very serious crimes, which include intentional homicide. This does not try to impose one definition of more serious offenses. Far from it, actually. It simply wants to point out that its interpretation has been used consistently by courts from various legal systems over the world. Costa Rica, sir, will vote against Amendment L.58 and calls on all member states to vote a similar vote based on this explanation. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Romania.

Thank you, President. Romania fully supports draft resolution L.12 on the question of the death penalty and commends the Core Group for reintroducing this important initiative during the current session. The resolution is a valuable contribution to the ongoing global discussion on human rights, particularly through its emphasis on the principle of equality of arms. It highlights the need to prevent the arbitrary or discriminatory use of capital punishment, a non-negligible risk whenever fair trials guarantees are lacking. The steady global decline in the use of the death penalty reflects the impact of international legal instruments, such as the ICCPR, that permit capital punishment only in cases involving the most serious crimes. This threshold has played a key role in guiding countries towards moratoriums and increasingly full abolition. It has also helped define the direction of state obligations to gradually move away from this form of punishment. Despite this positive trend, we remain concerned by its continued application in cases that do not meet the required threshold of severity. This undermines both the spirit and the letter of international human rights law. In this context, Romania regrets the introduction of Amendment L58, which seeks to narrow the space for interpreting the term "most serious crimes." Rather than supporting the restrictive approach that has taken shape through years of legal reasoning and practice, the amendment seems to challenge it. This is especially concerning given the fact that for the last decades, courts of law at all levels have interpreted "most serious crimes" in a consistent manner to mean offenses of exceptional gravity involving intentional killing. "Consistently" does not mean "unanimously." While it is true that there is no universally agreed definition of the term "most serious crimes," Resolution L.12 does not attempt to impose one. The resolution simply recalls that the interpretation has been applied coherently and progressively across jurisdictions around the world. These restrictive interpretations reflect the ongoing global trend towards limiting the use of capital punishment. National jurisprudence increasingly supports the view that the death penalty should be reserved, if at all imposed, only for the gravest of crimes resulting in deliberate loss of life. Weakening this standard would compromise efforts to prevent the death penalty from being used unfairly and arbitrarily, particularly in contexts where due process cannot be fully guaranteed. For these reasons, Romania will vote against Amendment 58 and encourages all other member states to do the same.

Thank you. I don't see any other request for the floor. At the request of the delegation of Mexico, the Council will now proceed to a recorded vote on L.58. I ask the Secretary to open the voting machine, and I ask all delegations to register their vote. I ask delegations to check whether their vote is accurately reflected on the screen. If so, I ask the Secretariat to close the voting machine. The voting is now closed. The results of the recorded votes are as follows: 13 in favour, 25 against, 9 abstentions. Amendment L.58 is therefore rejected. A copy of the results of the votes will shortly be posted on the Extranet. And we will now proceed to take action on amendment L59. I give the floor to Council members for explanations of votes before the vote on draft amendment L59. I give the floor to the representative of the Netherlands.

Thank you, Mr. President. The amendment before us seeks to remove a critical reference recalling that mandatory death sentences deny sentencing courts their judicial discretion. rendering them arbitrary and inconsistent with the right to a fair trial and the right to life. The Kingdom of the Netherlands firmly opposes this amendment. Judicial discretion lies at the heart of justice. It ensures that each case is examined based on its individual merits, taking into account the circumstances of the offense, the situation of the accused, and any mitigating factors. When the death penalty is imposed automatically, without allowing judges to weigh these elements, it ceases to be an act of rendering justice and becomes an arbitrary deprivation of life. The Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 36, has made this clear, and I quote, "Mandatory death sentences that leave domestic courts with no discretion as to whether to impose the death penalty are arbitrary in nature and incompatible with Articles 6 and 14 of the ICCPR." The Committee was crystal clear. Judicial discretion is an indispensable safeguard against arbitrariness and a precondition for fairness. Mr. President, recent developments confirm this. As noted in the Secretary-General 's latest report, Malaysia's 2023 abolition of the mandatory death penalty and the subsequent re-sentencing of over 1,000 individuals show how judicial discretion strengthens due process and prevents injustice. During this year's high-level panel on the death penalty, judges and officials from across regions and legal systems, from Malaysia to Zimbabwe and Morocco, underscored the crucial role of the judiciary in ensuring that punishment fits both the crime and the offender, thereby avoiding irreversibly miscarriages of justice. Mr. President, deleting this reference, as this amendment seeks to do, would weaken the resolution and undermine established human rights law. The Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore urges all delegations to vote against this amendment and to uphold the text as drafted. Justice requires judgment, no automatism. Judicial discretion remains a vital safeguard of human dignity and the right to life. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico.

Thank you, Mr. President. My delegation will vote against amendment L.59 for two main reasons. First, the amendment seeks to limit the scope of indispensable safeguards to guarantee that universal rights be respected, such as the right to life and the guarantees of due process, which are protected by Articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively. Considering personal circumstances, including mitigating factors, in addition to being recognized guarantees by the Human Rights Council, are also criteria used by international courts, which have been a consensus here and in the GA. Secondly, the amendment seeks to delete the reference to the compulsory death penalty, ignoring that this practice has been qualified as arbitrary and incompatible with human rights. The jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, among others, have pointed out that the capital punishment used automatically violates the right to a fair trial. Given that it is not considered mitigating or aggravating factors or the proportionality of the sentence, this lack of court discretion turns the process into a formal transaction without effective justice, and it deprives the defendant from factors that could take into consideration the proportionality of the sentence, and that's a violation of a fair trial. Also, in the high-level roundtable on the death penalty of February 2025 and the Secretary-General's report of August 2025 underscore the importance of legal discretion which allows judges to use alternative sentences and proportional sentences, thereby reducing the use of death penalty in practice. Therefore, singling out different sentences guarantees that though a crime might be punished with a death penalty, the judge can determine whether this is the most fitting sentence or perhaps another sentence is more fitting and proportional. respecting human rights, which is why my delegation will vote no to amendment L.59 and encourages all members of the Council to reject it. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't see any other requests for the floor. At the request of the delegation of Mexico, the Council will now proceed to a recorded vote on L.59. I ask the Secretariat to open the voting machine, and I ask all delegations to register their vote. I ask delegations to check whether their vote is accurately reflected on the screen. If so, I ask the Secretariat to close the voting machine. The voting is now closed. The result of the recorded votes is as follows: 11 in favour, 9 abstentions, 26 against. Amendment L59 is therefore rejected. A copy of the results of the votes will shortly be posted on the Extranet. The Council will now proceed to take action on draft proposal L12. I will give the floor to members of the Council who wish to make explanations of votes before the vote on draft resolution L12. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Kuwait.

Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honor to speak on behalf of a cross-regional group of 27 countries. The list will be uploaded to the extranet. At the outset, allow me to underscore three points of international law that this Council cannot ignore. First, International law does not prohibit the death penalty. There is no global consensus either for or against its use when applied in accordance with due process and judicial safeguards. Second, there is no universally agreed definition of the most serious crimes. The ICCPR is silent on this. and references to General Comment No. 36, while often repeated many times, remain non-binding. Third, every state retains the sovereign right to determine the appropriate penalties for the gravest crimes under its legal system, consistent with its international obligations. For many of our countries, the death penalty continues to play a legitimate role in protecting our societies and deterring the most serious offenses. Mr. President, the draft resolution disregards these principles. relying on non-binding interpretations and presenting them as international obligations. This mischaracterizes the law and fails to reflect the diversity of legal systems represented in this Council. Despite our constructive engagement and consultations, our concerns were not taken on board. The draft remains one-sided and cannot enjoy consensus. For these reasons, on behalf of 29 countries, including seven members of this Council, we call for a vote on draft resolution L12. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll give the floor to the distinguished representative of China.

Mr. President, the issue of the death penalty is a legislative and judicial issue which fall within a nation's sovereignty, there is no consensus on abolition or retention of this punishment, or on the interpretation of the term most serious crimes. When considering the abolition or retention of various penalties, including the death penalty, one must take into full account the level of economic and social development, social system, historical and cultural context of various countries, or whether these penalties can better serve the best interests of the people and social stability. In China, the death penalty is retained, but strict control and caution are exercised in its application with rigorous review procedures as required by law. Mr. President, when discussing and adopting resolutions on the issue of death penalty, the Council should take an objective, impartial, and balanced approach by respecting the judicial sovereignty of all countries. In this regard, China echoes what was said by the ambassador of Singapore when he presented the amendments, that the HRC cannot impose the values and the opinions of certain states on others, with no respect to the actual state of international law nor the diversity of state practice. Unfortunately, despite China and many developing countries' active participation in the consultation and our constructive suggestions, The sponsors failed to take our views into account and did not really solve our concerns. Therefore, China supports the statements made by the representative of Kuwait on behalf of a group of countries and to ask for a vote on draft resolution L12, and we will vote against, and we also call on other members of the Council to vote against draft resolution L12. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba.

Mr. President, there has never been a consensus within the international community regarding the death penalty. The resolutions of the Council and the General Assembly are clear on this point. and they have been adopted, reflecting a divergence of views on this matter. The issue of the death penalty must meet a number of requirements. We are in favour of its elimination if conditions are appropriate for that, and therefore we take up the proposals for its elimination or moratorium. This is indeed the direction in which we should move. However, in parallel, our country has always attempted to defend itself and conserve its legitimacy in the face of attempts to destroy the Cuban people, and we have always done this in full compliance with all legal requirements while complying with judicial procedures. The penalty of the death penalty is used in very exceptional cases in Cuba. For years, no one has been sentenced to death by any of our courts, and this has been the case since 2003. Nobody is on death row in Cuba currently, and we hope that in a relatively near future, we will be able to completely eliminate the death penalty. However, this must be accompanied by an end of attempts by the United States in its activities which harm us. In this way, we could move forward. Draft L.12 does not reflect Cuba's position, and we cannot accept it as it stands. This draft resolution does not recognize the sovereign right of each state to shape a judicial system as it sees fit. and this, of course, in taking into consideration its specific features, but also the provisions of international law. Thus, Cuba has voted in favour of amendments L.36, L.39 and L.58. Our delegation, however, will not participate in the vote relating to L.12. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ghana.

Thank you, Mr. President. We thank the sponsors of draft resolution L.12. We attach great importance to the fundamental right to life and human dignity. In accordance with our constitutional and legislative framework, we place strong emphasis on transparency and robust fair trial guarantees, ensuring equal access to justice for all. We have carefully reviewed draft resolution L12 and welcome the continued consideration by the Human Rights Council of the question of the death penalty, which remains an unsettled matter under international law. Mr. President, Ghana support constructive dialogue within the Human Rights Council and in other international fora towards a unified position for the abolishment of the death penalty for all ordinary crimes. In Ghana, our 1992 constitution retains the death penalty solely for the crime of treason. However, in a progressive effort towards abolition, legislative amendment introduced in 2023 replaced the death penalty for ordinary crimes with life sentence. This pivotal step effectively abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes under Ghana's legal system and placed Ghana's laws in alignment with its international human rights commitment. I wish to underline that pending constitutional amendment on the application of the death penalty for the crime of treason, Ghana's constitution and laws provide critical safeguards to ensure the free and fair trial of all persons in accordance with their legal and human rights and the application of the rule of law. It is important to underscore, in this regard, that criminal procedure is jurisdiction-specific. Hence, it remains the sovereign right of all states to elaborate their own legal systems and to provide for appropriate penalties. In closing, my delegation wishes to stress the agreed principle that the implementation of recommendations in resolutions is the sovereign right of each country, recognizing the need to respect the various legal and constitutional context while ensuring conformity with universally recognized international human rights. I thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Japan.

Thank you, Mr. President. We understand that this resolution highlights the importance of transparency when addressing the question of death penalty. From the perspective that this is not an ideological confrontation between abolitionist and retentionist states, Japan has participated constructively in the negotiations with the aim of ensuring that the resolution reflects both positions. In presenting our position, we consider that international law does not prohibit the use of death penalty by states as long as their actions are compliant with international human rights obligations, and that there is no universally accepted obligation under international human rights law to introduce a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Japan's death penalty system complies with the requirements of the treaties Japan has concluded, with respect to death penalty, and Japan operates its system strictly and carefully in accordance with due process. Nevertheless, it is regretful that this draft resolution is strongly biased towards the abolition of the death penalty and a moratorium on its use. We therefore feel a need to reiterate that the question of whether to abolish the death penalty and to introduce moratorium on its use is a matter to be decided by each state with careful consideration of public opinion, the crime situation, and the criminal policy of the state concerned. Whether to maintain or abolish the death penalty is an important issue that concerns the very foundation of Japan's criminal justice system.

This issue should be carefully

considered from various perspectives, including the realization of justice in society and trends in public opinion. In Japan, there are diverse opinions on this issue among the public, and serious crimes continue to be committed. Therefore, it is difficult for Japan to abolish the death penalty at the present time. For these reasons, we cannot accept this resolution and will vote against it. I thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. I don't see any other requests for the floor. At the request of the delegation of Kuwait, the Council will now proceed to a recorded vote on draft text L.12. I ask the Secretariat to open the voting machine, and I request all delegations to register their vote. I request delegations to check whether their vote is accurately reflected on the screen. If that is the case, I ask the Secretariat to close the voting machine. The voting is now closed. The results of the recorded votes are as follows. 31 in favour, 7 against, 8 abstentions. Draft text L12 is therefore adopted. A copy of the results of the votes will shortly be posted on the extranet. The Council will now consider draft proposal L20 Rev.1 entitled Preventable Maternal Mortality and Morbidity and Human Rights. I give the floor to the representatives of New Zealand and Estonia to introduce the draft proposal. Colleagues,

Thank you, Mr. President. On behalf of the core group composed of New Zealand, Estonia, and Colombia, I have the honor to introduce draft resolution L20 on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights. When the core group first brought this resolution to the Council, the maternal mortality rate was 239 women dying for every 100,000 live births worldwide. Through collective effort, countries have reduced this to 197. This is an improvement, but still a far cry from our commitment in the Sustainable Development Goals to reduce the maternal mortality rate to less than 70 deaths per 100,000 births. We must do more, which is why we and our 51 co-sponsors continue to call attention to this vital issue. Every preventable maternal death is one too many. Our resolution urges states to strengthen health systems, ensure access to essential services, and address the root causes of preventable deaths, including discrimination and harmful practices. This year, we have placed special emphasis on midwifery. Universal midwifery coverage could prevent more than two-thirds of maternal deaths, save millions of newborn lives, and ensure that women and girls everywhere receive safe, respectful, and rights-based maternal care. I would now like to give the floor to the Ambassador of Estonia, Ms. Rea Salsa-Odriffen.

Thank you, Ambassador. Mr. President, our countries come from different regions of the world with diverse legal systems, traditions, religions, and customs. This diversity underlines both the universal nature of preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and the need for a transversal, collaborative response from this Council. Negotiations on this resolution were conducted in constructive spirit, building on more than a decade of work since the first preventable maternal mortality and morbidity resolution was adopted in 2010. We sought to preserve agreed language, to integrate new evidence and good practice, and to ensure text reflects both continuity and progress. Despite the advances made, the reality remains stark. Progress in reducing maternal mortality has stalled globally, and too many women and girls still die from causes that are entirely preventable. That is why this resolution is not only timely, but urgent. The core group reiterates its commitment to work with all delegations and stakeholders to transform words into concrete action so that every woman, everywhere, can experience pregnancy and childbirth safely with dignity and respect. We therefore invite all delegations to support this important resolution and to adopt it by consensus. I thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. I wish to inform the Council that written amendments L35, L52, and L53 have been withdrawn. I now give the floor to the representative of Algeria on behalf of the Group of Arab States to introduce written amendments L40, L41, and L42. I would kindly request the representative to introduce all amendments on the understanding that each amendment will be acted upon separately. You have five minutes, please.

Thank you, Chair. I have the honor to introduce, on behalf of the Group of Arab States, amendments L40, L41, and L42, aimed to address specific non-consensual language contained in the draft resolution L20 Rev.1 as orally revised entitled Preventable Maternal Mortality and Morbidity and Human Rights. Amendment L40 concerns Preambular paragraphs 15 and 26 and operative paragraph 12 and aims at replacing the references to the so-called right to bodily autonomy, which does not appear in any human rights treaty. We fully support efforts to protect and promote the autonomy of women, but we believe that extending this concept to girls contradicts states' obligation under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and exposes girls to greater risk of abuse, exploitation, harm, and violence, as it does not account for the evolving capacity of minors or for the role of parents and legal guardians. Amendment L.40 proposed also language taken verbatim from paragraph 29, 96 of the Beijing Declaration and Programme of Action. Amendment L.41 concerned the reference to comprehensive sexuality education in preamble paragraph 12 and 25, as well as in operative paragraphs 9 and 19. Since its emergence, the concept of comprehensive sexuality education has faced widespread opposition across multiple UN foras, including the Human Rights Council. References to the CSE have consistently represented a red line for many member states and have been met with amendments. It's also important to highlight that no General Assembly resolution has ever endorsed this terminology. Amendment L41 proposed a constructive alternative which reaffirms the importance of providing scientifically accurate, age-appropriate, culturally relevant education on sexual and reproductive health, while emphasizing the role of parents and legal guardians consistent with the best interests of the child, which is language agreed by the General Assembly 2017 resolution on the rights of the child. Finally, amendment L42 addresses the reference to sexual and reproductive rights in preamble paragraph 8, 18, and 20, and operative paragraph 1, 17, and 18. Sexual and reproductive health is acknowledged as an essential component of the right to health. However, it's important to note that neither sexual rights nor reproductive rights are recognized at the standard stone rights in any binding international human rights treaty. Thus, the conclusion of the inclusion of the concepts such as sexual rights and reproductive rights in this resolution risk introducing terminology that is inconsistent with internationally agreed language and may be interpreted as creating new rights not grounded in existing international human rights instruments. Mr. President, the three amendments presented by the Group of Arab States are intended to strengthen the text, preserve consensus, and ensure that the resolution remains consistent with internationally agreed human rights terminology and respectful of all cultural and legal traditions. We submit these amendments in a constructive spirit, and we kindly call on all delegations to vote in their favor. Thank you.

Thank you. I will now turn to the representative of Colombia to seek the views of the sponsors on the amendments. You have the floor.

Thank you, sir. It is my honor to speak on behalf of the core group of the resolution on maternal mortality and morbidity, preventable. From the beginning of the process, the core group held numerous informal consultations, bilateral meetings with delegations from all regions. as well as a dialogue with civil society. The text we have for you today was drafted in close collaboration with specialized UN bodies, among them the World Health Organization, the Office of the High Commissioner, the UN Population Fund. Sir, this resolution is not yet another document. It is a statement on the value of human life and dignity. Every day, over 800 women across the world die for events related to pregnancy or birth, and most of these deaths are preventable. Behind every figure, there is a family, there's a community, there's a future cut short. The draft resolution tries to avoid these deaths by saying that preventable maternal mortality and morbidity is a human rights issue. It calls for increasing preventive action, broadening access to quality health services, securing sustained, continuous financing, and addressing the structural causes that perpetuate inequalities. It also recognizes how important comprehensive sex education is, how important corporal autonomy and universal access to reproductive services is, and education on reproductive services and reproductive rights, which protect the women's lives throughout the world. Amendments L40, L41, and L42. I will say with all due respect, turn the focus away from the core of the draft resolution by amending or relativizing these principles, it weakens states' ability to acting with all means available to prevent preventable deaths. In addition, it creates confusion about what these concepts mean, and it distorts the spirit of the text, whose ultimate purpose is to protect the life and the health of women and girls, which is why The core group calls for a rejection of the amendments and to uphold the integrity of the draft resolution. Doing so is to reiterate this Council's commitment to life, to dignity, and to human rights. To protect this text is, ultimately, to protect lives, the lives of those who are themselves sources of life. Thank you.

I understand that the sponsors do not agree with the proposed amendments. I have been informed by the Secretariat that there are seven additional co-sponsors to draft proposal L20-REF1. as orally revised and reflected on e-delegate. And I'll give the floor to members of the Council who wish to make general comments on draft proposal L20-REF1 as orally revised and on written amendments L40, L41, and L42. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cyprus.

Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the EU member states that are members of the Human Rights Council. This general comment has been agreed by the EU as a whole. In 2023, an estimated 260,000 women died as a result of complications from pregnancy or childbirth. That's one in every two minutes. As the title of this resolution states, these deaths are preventable, and we need to do more to achieve this. The full enjoyment of all human rights by women and girls is a priority for the European Union. Maternal mortalities and morbidities are often a consequence of human rights violations, such as discrimination and a lack of equitable access to appropriate services. Therefore, we agree that preventing maternal mortality and morbidity should be among the human rights priorities for all states. The European Union would also like to commend the focus of this year's resolution, which is respectful maternal care, including midwifery models of care, highlighting the rights-based support before, during, and after pregnancy. Mr. President, the EU remains committed to the promotion, protection, and fulfillment of all human rights and to the full and effective implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action and the Program of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the outcomes of their review conferences and remains committed to sexual and reproductive health and rights in this context. Having this in mind, the EU reaffirmed its commitment to the promotion, protection and fulfilment of the right of every individual to have full control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality and sexual and reproductive health, free from discrimination, coercion and violence. The EU further stresses the need for universal access to quality and affordable comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information, education, including comprehensive sexuality education, and health care services. Greater political will and commitment, as well as international cooperation and investment in health systems, are urgently required to reduce the unacceptably high global rate of preventable maternal mortality and morbidity. The EU thanks the delegations of New Zealand, Colombia, and Estonia for presenting the resolution on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity, recognize the vital importance of the objectives set forth in it, and support its adoption. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil.

Mr. President, Brazil thanks the core group for its work on resolution L20. and for the ample negotiations on this important text, which has been traditionally co-sponsored by Brazil. The approval of the resolution on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights adds significant value to the ongoing efforts to promote the rights of all women and girls, which are highlighted this year by the celebrations marking the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and platform for action. Brazil endorses the view that most death and grievous injuries sustained by women and girls during pregnancy, childbirth, and the prenatal and postnatal periods are not inevitable events, but rather a result of the interplay of key socioeconomic determinants of health driven by poverty, systemic racism, deep-rooted patriarchal and gender stereotypes, the disrespect of sexual and reproductive health and rights, among others. Brazil continues to work to promote the right to the highest attainable standard of health across the life course and believes in the context of the prevention of maternal mortality and morbidity, that the access to evidence-based, comprehensive sexuality education is essential to foster awareness about the risks and challenges related to the health of women and girls. Brazil gladly supports this initiative and calls upon all members to approve draft resolution L20 by consensus. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the representative of Cuba.

Mr. President, we would like to thank the delegations of New Zealand, Colombia and Estonia for presenting L20/Rev.1. This text takes on a priority subject for Cuba, one that we pay particular attention to as part of efforts to guarantee the human right to health and the rights of women and girls. The continuance of maternal-- preventable maternal mortality and morbidity across the world is one of the most painful expressions of poverty and quality and social injustice. In spite of the oral review, the draft resolution, in our view, does not sufficiently clearly enough reflect the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the prevention of maternal mortality and morbidity. These measures limit access to medication, equipment, technology, and essential resources to prevent maternal mortality and morbidity. We urge the sponsors to consider this important dimension of the problem in future texts. No woman should die for preventable causes during pregnancy, childbirth, or after. Cuba has a universal, free, health system focused on primary care, which has allowed us to have very favorable maternal indicators. This has been done in spite of adverse economic conditions and the harmful impact on the economic embargo imposed by the government to the United States. Cuba will continue to defend the right to health as one of the essential pillars of human dignity, which is why Mr. President, Cuba supports draft resolution L.20 Rev.1 and hopes that it will be adopted by consensus. Thank you.

I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Marshall Islands.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Marshall Islands would like to thank the core group for presenting draft resolution L.20 Rev.1 as early revised, entitled Preventable Maternal Mortality and Morbidity, and thank them for the inclusive approach they have taken to negotiate this resolution. As a matrilineal society, Marshallese women and girls play a central role in land management, family life, and are pillars of our communities. We have a saying in our language that translates to, "Those without their mother are unfortunate." As in our culture, women are essential to the social fabric of their families and their community. Our region faces some of the starkest maternal and newborn health disparities in the world. Climate change, the geography of our small island countries, and fragile healthcare system magnify these challenges. Yet the Pacific holds immense potential for progress. The 2050 strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent exemplifies this. It envisions a future of resilience, inclusion, and sustainable prosperity, values that inch upon ensuring equity in maternal and newborn health. A human rights approach is central to addressing maternal mortality and morbidity. We must empower women with the resources they need for better health outcomes and reduce the barriers they face, including discrimination and restrictions on their autonomy and decision-making power. By recognizing the interconnection between human rights, public health, climate change resilience, and other protective factors for eliminating maternal mortality, we can promote long-term sustainable change and ensure that every woman can access the care she needs to nurture resilient and healthy families and communities. In the Marshall Islands, the nuclear legacy and its intergenerational impacts continue to have a lasting impact on women's health, an issue we continue to bring to the attention of this Council. We are pleased to see that the role of toxics on the maternal mortality and morbidity rate is now recognized in this resolution for the first time. Mr. President, it is for these reasons that we will vote against all amendments and stand ready to support the adoption of L20 Rev.1 as orally revised by consensus and call on all members to do the same. Thank you.

I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cote d'Ivoire.

Thank you, Mr. President. The delegation of Cote d'Ivoire would like to thank the core countries presenting this important resolution on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity. We would like to express our full support for this initiative, which recalls that each avoided maternal mortality, so protection of the fundamental rights of women, particularly the right to life, to health, and the respect for their dignity. Cote d'Ivoire recognizes that the causes that lead to maternal mortality, like poverty, limited access to health, sexual, or reproductive services, or systemic discrimination, call for a comprehensive, multisectoral, and rights-based solution. With that in mind, Côte d'Ivoire has set up several policies and initiatives in order to combat maternal mortality, among them the national free health care plan and the emergency neonatal plan since 2012, which reduces financial barriers for vulnerable pregnant women. Regionally, our country has also committed to the African Union's Initiative to Eliminate Preventable Maternal Mortality, which we call CARMA. And we are improving the civil registry system in order to better document births and deaths and to improve the maternal health indicators and recording them. We have pursued our national efforts in maternal mortality and for the protection of women's rights. pursuant to our regional and international commitments, particularly Sustainable Development Goal No. 3. Cote d'Ivoire calls for the adoption of this resolution by consensus in a spirit of international solidarity and shared responsibility. By supporting this resolution, we are taking yet another step towards a world in which no woman dies while giving life.

Switzerland.

Mr. President, we would like to thank.

The co-sponsors of L20/Rev.1 for presenting this important initiative. We reiterate our full support to this resolution as it currently stands. Preventable maternal mortality and morbidity are a serious health problem, but also a serious human rights problem. WHO figures are clear. Over 700 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and birth every day in 2023. Confronted with these unacceptable figures, it is important that the international community set up health and educational quality systems. Here, we would like to draw attention to goals 3.7 and 5.6 of the SDGs, which aim to guarantee universal access to sexual and reproductive health services, including education on sex and procreation, particularly for women and girls. The draft resolution considered today focuses on the indispensable role that midwives have throughout the whole pregnancy process, as well as during giving birth. Properly training medical staff is one of the great means to combat preventable maternal mortality and morbidity. This document also includes principles such as complete sexual education, which is an essential component in this issue of avoiding cases of maternal mortality and morbidity. Women and girls who have benefited from this education can take better, well-informed choices. Mentioning sexual and reproductive health is also a key part of this draft resolution. In order to prevent cases of maternal morbidity and mortality, women and girls must have access to structures allowing them to enjoy their rights fully. With this in mind, it's important to point out that unsafe abortions are, one, significant cost of maternal mortality and morbidity, which is why we regret this L20 Rev.1 has not been amended in this regard. The main sponsors had long, transparent, open discussions about this. The text and the results of the discussion is seen here. We also see some commitments, compromise made by the main participants and expressions of regional interest in this area on this subject, which we reiterate is of great importance as regards women and girls' rights. Switzerland is committed to providing access of all to education and services for maternal reproductive health and related rights. Thank you.

Ludith Dinkgwa, representative for South Africa.

Mr. President, according to the World Health Organization my computer is messing me up, sorry for that. Mr. President, according to the World Health Organization...

Oh, gosh, I can't.

If it's okay, we'll go on to the delegation of Kenya, and I'll get back to you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Kenya.

Thank you, Mr. President. Kenya thanks the core group for their efforts in preparing this draft and for their constructive engagement throughout. Kenya reaffirms its commitment to advancing sexual and reproductive health. and rights within our constitutional and legal frameworks that uphold dignity, equality, access to quality healthcare. The 2010 Constitution of Kenya enshrines the right to the highest attainable standard of health, including reproductive healthcare, and guarantees equality and non-discrimination, providing a robust foundation for SRH advancement. Kenya recognizes the importance of implementing comprehensive policies and judicial decisions that protect women's autonomy and informed consent in reproductive health matters. At the same time, Kenya stresses the indispensable need to respect cultural and national context in discussions of sexual and reproductive health. Effective implementation of SRH must consider diverse social, religious, and cultural dynamics that shape policies domestically. In future iteration of this important resolution, we look forward to the inclusion of stronger and more explicit references to the urgent need for intensified global cooperation in the form of resource mobilization, capacity building and technical assistance. These elements are critical in realizing universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reducing preventable maternal mortality and morbidity. Such emphasis aligns closely with the commitments articulated in the Nairobi Declaration of ICPD 25, which Kenya had the privilege to co-host, underscoring the global community's shared responsibility to provide sustainable political and financial support. To this end, my delegation will join consensus and look favorably to the table amendments, which aligns with Kenya's national policies. Thank you.

Thank you. South Africa, the computer is okay. You have the floor.

President, and thank you for your patience. Mr. President, according to the World Health Organization, maternal mortality is unacceptably high. Globally, around 260,000 women die from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth in 2023, averaging 700 deaths per day. The major causes of maternal death include severe bleeding, infection, high blood pressure, and complication from unsafe abortions, many of which are preventable with quality care. Complications from pregnancy, including unsafe abortions, are the leading cause of death among girls aged between 15 to 19 years. Behind every number is a family torn apart, a community destabilized, a future cut short. South Africa recognizes that high rates of unintended pregnancies contribute to maternal mortality. The United Nations and the African Union, through the Maputo Protocol, recognizes the right to bodily autonomy, especially for girls and women. Yet, we continue to grapple with the question of termination of pregnancy at a political level. This is the cause. This is the case even though the WHO has presented evidence that where abortion is legal and where safe services are accessible, both unsafe abortion and abortion-related mortality and morbidity are reduced. As South Africa, we know this from experience. The Choice of Termination of Pregnancy Act, which was adopted in 1996, contributed to a decline of termination of pregnancy-related mortality by 90% between 1994 and 2021. The Act was passed through a democratic process amidst robust debates and significant pushbacks, but in the end, scores of women's lives have been saved. Prevention of unintended pregnancies, comprehensive sexuality education, and the prevention of violence against women and girls are still priority interventions. Complementing this with sexual and reproductive health and rights saves more lives. Mr. President, the international community pledged through the Sustainable Development Goals to end preventable maternal, newborn, and child deaths and to secure universal access to sexual reproductive health services by 2030. While significant progress has been made, survival gains have been stalled since 2015. Unless we take bold actions, it is estimated that 60 countries will fall short of meeting the SDG target for under-five mortality, and 65 countries will not achieve the SDG target for neonatal mortality. Since last year, many critical programs for women's, children's, and adolescent health have collapsed or faced severe cuts. In this regard, we thank Colombia, Estonia, and New Zealand for their commitment to preventable maternal mortality and morbidity.

I have been informed by the Secretariat that there are PBIs for this draft proposal, which amount to a total of $229,000. This amount will need to be added to the budget. We will now take action on each of the amendments one by one in order of submission. We will then take action on the text as a whole, as amended or not. We will now proceed to take action on amendment L40. I give the floor to Council members for explanations of votes before the vote on draft amendment L40. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Iceland.

Mr. President, bodily autonomy is a fundamental element of respectful maternal health care and essential to ensuring that women and girls can live free from violence and discrimination. At its core, bodily autonomy is the right to decide who can touch your body and how. It is the ability to set boundaries and to say no. This includes being free to make an informed choice about medical care during pregnancy. Without this, maternal health cannot be safe, dignified, or rights-based. The denial of bodily autonomy has direct negative impact on maternal mortality and morbidity. Harmful practices like female genital mutilation, early child and forced marriage, early pregnancy, and gender-based and sexual violence all heighten the risk of complications and death. These are lived realities for millions of women and girls worldwide. Respecting bodily autonomy protects against human rights violations rooted in discrimination against women and girls. Therefore, Iceland cannot support amendment L40 proposed to draft resolution L20/Rev.1 that seeks to weaken agreed language. The Human Rights Council has repeatedly recognized bodily autonomy as a part of women's and girls' human rights, including in preventable maternal mortality and morbidity resolutions in 2021 and 2023. Further to this, this Council affirmed bodily autonomy as a right in the WOC resolution in 2020, reaffirmed in 2022 and 2024, as well as in the WOC 2023 resolution. To weaken or remove language on bodily autonomy would undermine the very purpose of this resolution and our shared responsibility to prevent maternal mortality and morbidity. Iceland will therefore vote against the amendment and urges all members to do the same. I thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Chile.

Gracias, Presidente.

Thank you, sir. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. the Compact on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and CEDAW all point out that states have an obligation to respect and protect people against violations of human rights, particularly those arising from discrimination against women and girls. This includes especially heinous types of violations such as female genital mutilation, early or forced maternity, earlier forced pregnancy, and sexual and gender violence. Corporal autonomy as a right means that people should enjoy their right to set limits, in addition to take informed decisions on medical care that is free from violence and abuse. This right and respecting this right are the foundation for a life free from violence and discrimination, and they are the very purpose of this resolution. It also means respecting the free choice of when and with whom to marry, when to form a family, as well as how many children to have. That is part of the right to health. In the context of economic, social, and cultural rights, corporal autonomy is fundamental, particularly for poor women and girls. In my region, many studies and reports attest to greater risk of gender violence in family environments with low income. And there have also been non-consented, forced, or coerced medical procedures. The Human Rights Council, Mr. President, has reiterated recognition of corporal autonomy as part of women and girls' human rights in many resolutions, including those on maternal mortality, preventable maternal mortality and morbidity 2021-2023, resolutions on early and forced child marriage, and on violence against women of 2019, '20, and '21. Also, the right has been reiterated in resolutions on all forms of discrimination against women and girls, 2020, 2022, and 2024, as well as resolution on violence against women and girls, 2023. Corporal autonomy is essential for this negotiated resolution in the Human Rights Council, given that it allows political authorities and rights holders to move towards the eradication of things that violate human rights, particularly those of women and girls. recognizing their right to decide. It is for all these reasons that she will vote against L40, and we urge all members of the Council to reject that as well. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't see any other requests for the floor. At the request of the delegation of Colombia, the Council will now proceed to a recorded vote on L40. I ask the Secretary to open the voting machine and invite all delegations to register their vote.

What happened?

What happened?

I think there's an issue.

We should call a technician.

Yeah, it seems that not only the South African computer has... I see the technicians running around. We are hopeful that we can solve this soon. Sorry about that. Okay, sorry colleagues for that. We will try to start this vote again. So I ask the Secretariat to open the voting machine for a recorded vote on L40, and I invite the delegations to register their vote. That's not going anywhere. Okay. Listen, while we are trying to fix the machine, what I would like to suggest in order to not lose too much time is to do this old style and do a roll call for L40, by which the Secretariat would call up on each delegation in the English language alphabetical order. note the results, and I will announce the results, and I hope in the meantime the machine will come back. Is that acceptable? Is there any objection to that procedure? Roll call on L40. I don't see any objection. Then we will proceed as such.

Thank you very much, Excellency, Mr. President. So now let me start with the full list of members by English alphabetical. When I call, please indicate yes, no, or abstention so my colleague, we can record the vote. I start with on the text L40. Albania. Algeria. Bangladesh? Belgium? Benin? Bolivia? Bolivia?

No.

Bolivia, no. Brazil?

No.

Bulgaria,

no.

Burundi,

abstention.

Chile,

no.

China,

yes.

Costa Rica,

no.

Côte d'Ivoire,

no.

No, Côte d'Ivoire.

Cuba, absent. Cyprus? Oh, sorry. Colombia, no, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, I'm at least Colombia, Colombia after the China, sorry, excuse me.

Yeah.

No.

Colombia, no. Cyprus, Cote d'Ivoire.

No.

Yeah, Cote d'Ivoire.

Okay, I've seen Cyprus.

Cyprus?

No.

Czechia?

No.

Democr- DRC. Hold on a second. Costa Rica. DRC, Democratic Republic of Congo.

Abstention.

Dominican Republic.

Abstention.

Ethiopia. France. Gambia. Georgia. Germany. Ghana. Ghana, sorry.

Yes.

Iceland.

No.

Indonesia. Japan.

No.

Kenya.

Yes.

Kuwait.

Yes.

Kirghizstan.

Abstention.

Malawi?

Abstention.

Maldives.

Yes.

Marshall Islands?

No.

Mexico?

No.

Morocco? Netherlands.

No.

North Macedonia.

No.

No.

Qatar.

Yes.

Yes. Republic of Korea.

No.

Romania.

No.

South Africa.

No.

Spain.

No.

Sudan.

Yes.

Switzerland.

No.

Thailand.

No.

Vietnam.

Abstention.

Thank you, Mr. President. Could you please give us one second to come? Thank you.

Maybe a little more. Okay, sorry for the time. We didn't practice this. The result of the, is it a recorded vote? Yeah, manually recorded vote is as follows: 13 in favor, 27 against, 6 abstentions. Amendment L4 is therefore rejected. Amendment L40, sorry, is therefore rejected. We will now proceed to take action on amendment L41. I'll give the floor to Council members for explanations of votes before the vote on draft amendment L41. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mexico rejects Amendment L.41, which seeks to eliminate or weaken references to sexual comprehensive education. Comprehensive sexual education is an internationally recognized tool developed by UN agencies, and it is a key component to securing the right to health, education, and gender equality. It is a non-ideological educational approach that is scientific evidence-based and not on misinformation, developed to be age-appropriate for the development of boys, girls, and adolescents. And in each stage, there are different contents that are adopted to their cognitive and emotional development level. Additionally, it contributes to preventing gender violence by promoting equal behavior and an understanding of consent from very early ages. This is essential, seeing that one out of every four adolescents has experienced violence in couples' relationships, high pregnancy rates among teenagers, particularly in developing countries, and that preventable maternal mortality continues to be one of the main causes of deaths among young people and girls. According to UNESCO, Mr. President, over 100 countries have already included comprehensive sexual education in their national educational systems, of course, adapted to their cultural specificities, and that is the case of our country. The Committee on the Rights of the Child, for their part, in General Comment No. 20, has highlighted that adolescents have the right to have access to information, education, and confidential services tailored to their needs in the area of sexual and reproductive health without requiring their parents' or guardians' consent. Doing away with references to comprehensive sexual education, as Amendment L.41 tries to do, would be to throw decades of progress and evidence into the trash bin, because this is an essential tool for the protection of rights and the prevention of maternal mortality. Mexico will vote against this amendment and calls on other states of this Council to reject it as well. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Netherlands.

Thank you, Mr. President. Comprehensive sexual education, CSE, is a proven life-saving tool. Extensive research confirms that CSE significantly reduces maternal mortality and morbidity by equipping people with knowledge to make informed decisions about their bodies, health and rights. It delays initiation of sexual intercourse, increases contraceptive use, and prevents unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions, key drivers of preventable maternal death. But CSZ does more than protect physical health. It fosters resilience against gender-based violence, promotes bodily autonomy, and strengthens young people's ability to seek essential health care. Tailored to age-appropriate information, it addresses not only biology, but also consent, relationships, and emotional well-being, topics that are critical for women's empowerment, yet often neglected. The evidence is unequivocal. Removing CSE undermines public health, human rights, and gender equality. It contradicts commitments under international frameworks, including the ICPD Program of Action and the Sustainable Development Goals. The Kingdom of the Netherlands will therefore vote against the amendment seeking to remove CSE from this resolution. And the Netherlands urges all Council members to do the same and stand with us in upholding a right that protects lives and empowers future generations. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't see any other request for the floor. At the request of the delegation of Colombia, the Council will now proceed to a recorded vote on L41. Let me give you the details on the status of the machine. The situation is the following. The machine needs a reboot. If we reboot, we need also to reboot the whole sound system, so we cannot just continue while they reboot in the back. Because we already started voting, we cannot interrupt. We need to continue voting, which means we will continue doing this by roll call until we are done with this draft proposal and then can break for lunch, and hopefully we'll get the machine back on track. So we will now vote on L41. Again, by roll call, I apologize for the complications, and I give the floor to the Secretariat again.

Thank you, Excellency, Mr. President. So now we're going to do roll call. I call the members of the Council by English alphabetical. Yes or no or abstention. I try to go slowly, as clear as possible, so everybody can hear. Albania.

No.

Algeria.

Yes.

Bangladesh.

Yes.

Belgium,

no.

Benin,

no.

Bolivia,

no.

Brazil.

No.

Bulgaria.

No.

Burundi.

Abstention.

Chile.

No.

China. China.

Yes.

Colombia.

No.

Costa Rica.

No.

Cote d'Ivoire.

Abstention.

Cuba.

Abstain.

Cyprus?

No.

Czechia?

No.

DRC?

Abstention.

Dominican Republic.

Abstention.

Ethiopia.

Yes.

France.

No.

Gambia.

Yes.

Georgia.

No.

Germany.

No.

Ghana.

Yes.

Iceland.

No.

Indonesia.

Yes.

Japan.

No.

Kenya.

Yes.

Kuwait.

Yes.

Kyrgyzstan.

Abstention.

Malawi.

Abstention.

Maldives.

Yes.

Marshall Islands.

No.

Mexico.

No.

Morocco.

Yes.

Netherlands.

No.

North Macedonia.

No.

Qatar.

Yes.

Republic of Korea.

No.

Romania.

No.

South Africa.

No.

Spain.

No.

Sudan.

Yes.

Switzerland.

No.

Thailand.

No.

Vietnam.

Abstention.

The results of the recorded votes are as follow: 13 in favour, 26 against, 7 abstentions. Amendment L41 is therefore rejected. of the results of the votes will shortly be posted on the Extranet. We will now proceed to take action on amendment L42. I give the floor to Council members for explanations of votes before the vote on draft amendment L42. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belgium.

Thank you. Belgium supports the text as drafted by the Core Group, and we reject Amendment L.42, which proposed removing references to health and sexual reproductive rights throughout the text. Many women and girls die across the world from complications related to pregnancy or birth. That is unacceptable. While these deaths are preventable most of the time, health and sexual reproductive rights guarantee for women and girls access to training and quality health services, but also autonomously choosing for themselves about their body and their reproductive life. Being able to choose when, with whom and when to have sexual relations, children or to get married is not a privilege, it is a right. Health and sexual and reproductive rights also involve the right to be informed and having access to safe, effective, affordable family planning methods, and the right to have access to the right health services that allow women to complete their pregnancy in safety. When these rights are rejected or not accessible to them, women face increased risks According to the World Health Organization, between 4.7 percent and 13.2 percent of maternal deaths are related to unsafe abortions, that is, abortions practiced by an unqualified individual or in a setting that does not meet minimal medical standards. Additionally, health and sexual reproductive rights are an essential prevention tool to combat gender-based violence such as child marriage, early and forced marriage, sexual violence, and female genital mutilation. All of them are related to higher maternal mortality and morbidity. Given that it takes on the root causes of maternal mortality and morbidity, health and sexual reproductive rights are obviously a key component of any discussion about the topic. It's not just a matter of a medical issue, but what is at stake here is the human dignity for all women and girls, which is why we will vote against Amendment L42, and we call on all members of the Council to vote likewise. Thank you.

I don't see any other requests. Sorry, I give the floor to the distinguished representative for Spain.

Gracias, señor Presidente.

Thank you. Spain rejects amendment L.42, which seeks to weaken references to health and sexual and reproductive rights, including draft resolution L.20 Rev.1. Having these rights affects the very core of the resolution, which seeks to combat maternal mortality with a human rights-based approach, given that these deaths, as we all know, are preventable, avoidable. Over 30 years ago already in Cairo, the international community recognized sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights and the empowerment of women and girls as pillars of sustainable development. Paragraph 7.3 of the Program of Action of the International Conference on the Production and Development said that health and sexual reproductive rights are not a new category of rights. Rather, they are part and parcel with universal human rights. However, given a virulent reaction which challenges everywhere in the world the equality and the autonomy of women and their freedom in deciding about their own lives, their own bodies, Spain reiterates its commitment with these rights. Progress in reducing maternal mortality has stagnated, and we are far from reaching the goal we set in SDG 3. Developing countries support this bear disproportionately the burden of maternal death. Sexual and reproductive health rights try to narrow this gap through special policies and accessible services. To ensure that women can decide when or when not to have children, with whom, and how is essential in avoiding forced pregnancy or risky pregnancies, unsafe abortion, and maternal mortality, as the World Health Organization has stated. It should be recalled that the terminology of health and sexual reproductive rights is enshrined in resolutions of this Council adopted by consensus with broad support from delegations, as is the case of resolution 56/20 on HIV/AIDS and resolution 59/20 on violence against women and girls. Spain will continue to strive nationally and internationally to promote sexual and reproductive rights and include them in our cooperation policy and in efforts to ensure we have universal health coverage, which is why Spain will vote against Amendment L.42 and urges members of the Council to also do so. Thank you.

Thank you. At the request of the delegation of Colombia, we will now proceed to a recorded vote on L42. We do it again by roll call. I give the floor to the Secretary.

Thank you very much, President. So now it's a roll call vote on L40, so I go slowly, clearly sorry, L42. So delegates, please repeat when your microphone is on so interpreters can hear your vote. Thank you very much. L42, let me start with Albania. No. Algeria. Yes. Bangladesh. Yes. Belgium. No. Benin. No. Bolivia. No. Brazil. No. Bulgaria. No. Burundi. Abstention. Chile. No. China. China, could you repeat?

Zancheng.

Yes.

Yes.

Colombia.

No.

Costa Rica.

No.

Cote d'Ivoire.

Abstention.

Cuba. Absent. Cyprus?

No.

Czechia?

No.

Democratic Republic of Congo?

Abstention.

Dominican Republic?

Abstention.

Ethiopia?

Yes.

France?

No.

Gambia?

Yes.

Georgia?

No.

Germany.

No.

Ghana.

Yes.

Indonesia. Iceland. Oh, sorry. I missed Iceland.

No.

Indonesia.

Yes.

Japan.

No.

Kenya.

Yes.

Kuwait.

Yes.

Kyrgyzstan.

Abstention.

Malawi.

Abstention.

Maldives.

Yes.

Marshall Islands.

No.

Mexico.

No.

Morocco.

Yes.

Netherlands.

No.

North Macedonia.

No.

Qatar.

Yes.

Republic of Korea.

No.

Romania.

No.

South Africa.

No.

Spain.

No.

Sudan.

Yes.

Switzerland.

No.

Thailand.

No.

Vietnam.

Abstention.

The results of the recorded votes are as follows: 13 in favour, 26 against, 7 abstentions. Amendment L4 is therefore... L42 is therefore rejected. A copy of the results of the votes will shortly be posted on the extranet. The Council will now proceed to take action on proposal L20-Rev.1 as orally revised. I will give the floor to members of the Council who wish to make explanations of votes before the vote on the draft resolution. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Chile.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I am pleased everything is working. Chile wishes to express its satisfaction over the outcome of the negotiation process for this significant resolution on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity, and we would like to thank the core group comprised of Colombia, Estonia, and New Zealand for their leadership and efforts to compromise. We appreciate that this Council has protected the integrity of the text and found a balanced, inclusive, and rights-based approach. We recognize in the resolution that preventable maternal mortality and morbidity are a human rights issue, while it also highlights the need to improve preventive action, guaranteeing universal access to sexual reproductive quality services, and addressing the structural causes that perpetuate inequalities. We are also appreciative of references to health workers, to professional midwives, to indigenous peoples, and to economic, social, and environmental health determinants, as well as the so-called as the call for the effective coverage of universal health coverage. We reject all type of discrimination against women, girls, and adolescents. and all their diversity, and that in keeping with our feminist foreign policy. For all of these reasons, Chile endorses the consensus on this resolution, and we hope that the whole Council will do the same. Should we move to a vote, Chile will vote in favor of the resolution. Thank you.

Mucha, can I inform the Council that Chile withdrew its co-sponsorship for this draft proposal as reflected in e-delegate and could therefore intervene on this text. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ghana.