Troisième Commission, 43e séance plénière - Assemblée générale, 81e session
Assemblée générale
Date: 13 November 2026
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/fr/ga/c3/81/43?lang=en
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

GA · Chair [20:05]:

Good morning, colleagues. We'll start in a few seconds. Very good. The 43rd meeting of the Third Committee of the General Assembly at its 81st session is called to order. Thank you very much for being here on time. The documentation before the committee for this meeting is listed on iGov. And I wish to remind delegations that statements made in explanation of vote before or after the vote, or general statements shall not exceed three minutes in the usual way. Delegations are also reminded that in accordance with rule 128 of the Rules of Procedure, the sponsor of a proposal may not speak in explanation of vote on the proposal. I now invite the Committee to resume our consideration of agenda item 24B, social development, including questions relating to the world social situation and to youth, aging persons with disabilities, and the family, in order to take action on draft resolution A/C3/81/L.9, entitled Follow-up to the Second World Assembly on Aging. I’d like to inform the Committee that draft resolution L/9 contains no programme budget implications. And I would now invite the distinguished representative of Uruguay, who I am hoping is in the room, on behalf of the G77 and China, to make a statement. You have the floor.


Uruguay · G77 + China [21:44]:

Thank you, Ambassador. Good morning, colleagues. Mr. Chair, I have the honor to introduce on behalf of the Group of 77 and China the resolution entitled Follow-up to the Second World Assembly on Aging under agenda item 24B. The resolution reaffirms our commitment to the implementation of the 22nd Madrid Political Declaration and International Plan of Action on Ageing. It recognizes the important contribution of older persons to sustainable development and underscores the importance of ensuring their full and effective participation in political, social, economic, and cultural life, as well as promoting and protecting their human rights. In this regard, it calls for efforts to address all forms of age discrimination and ageism, as well as violence, abuse, neglect, and social exclusion, paying particular attention to older women and older persons with disabilities. Furthermore, the resolution encourages states to strengthen social protection, health care, and long-term care policies and systems, ensure access to pensions, housing, employment, and digital technologies, and promote healthy and active aging, intergenerational solidarity, and inclusion of older persons in decision-making processes. It also highlights the importance of improving the collection of disaggregated data and strengthening national capacities to address the challenges posed by population aging. Finally, it underscores the need to enhance international cooperation, technical assistance, and resource mobilization to support countries in the implementation of the Madrid Plan of Action. This year, the G77 and China presented the resolution as a technical rollover. This, however, should not be taken as a reflection of any change in the Group's long-standing commitment to this issue. The Group looks forward to resuming substantive discussions on this resolution next year in the context of the 25th anniversary of the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing, with a view to addressing recent developments in this area. We wish to express our appreciation to the delegation of Argentina, which has traditionally facilitated this text on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. We invite all delegations to support and co-sponsor this resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


GA · Chair [23:57]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Uruguay, and I note that in addition to the delegations listed in the L document, additional co-sponsors of L/9 are reflected on iGov. And I now pass the floor to the Secretary to invite any other co-sponsors who wish to identify themselves.


GA · Secretary [24:19]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L/9, please signify by pressing the microphone button. I see Armenia, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Israel, and the Dominican Republic, as well as Uzbekistan. I see no further requests. As well as Ukraine. I see no further requests. Thank you.


GA · Chair [24:49]:

Thank you, Secretary. Does any delegation wish to make a statement in connection with draft resolution L/9? I see Peru. Peru, you have the floor, to be followed by El Salvador. Peru, you have the floor.


Peru [25:12]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Peru reaffirms its commitment to the promotion and protection of the human rights of all people, and also to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and girls. We also reaffirm our commitment to the protection of all people from violence and discrimination, as is stipulated by our national policy in this domain. Peru understands the word gender as part of gender perspectives, gender approaches, or incorporation of the gender perspective as referred to women and men. We understand these expressions as geared towards promoting equal opportunities between women and men, in line with our internal legal affairs. Secondly, when it comes to the references to sexual and reproductive health and sexual and reproductive rights, Peru understands them within the context of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Declaration and Platform of Action, and in line with our constitution and national legislation. We understand that the expression "sexual and reproductive rights" does not have an agreed definition at the international level, and we do not understand this as creating new obligations for States at the international level. In addition to this, guidelines on adolescents, boys and girls, should respond to the primordial duty of parents in children's education. This is enshrined in our political constitution and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Peru recalls that the resolutions adopted within the current session as a result of their non-binding nature, do not impose any additional obligations upon the Peruvian State. As a result of this, they will be interpreted in line with our political constitution, our national legislation, and the international obligations to which we have already signed up. Lastly, Peru requests that this statement be applicable to all the draft resolutions, including these terms that are to be considered in this session without our needing to take the floor each time to reiterate these points. Thank you very much.


GA · Chair [27:31]:

Thank you, Peru. I pass to El Salvador, to be followed by Niger. El Salvador, you have the floor.


El Salvador [27:39]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As we consider the draft resolutions, El Salvador would like to thank delegations for their hard work during the negotiations and their efforts to reach agreements on the various issues that the Third Committee is discussing. We reaffirm our commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms on the basis of the inherent dignity of all people and the principle of non-discrimination. In this context, we attach particular importance to measures to improve people's lives, in particular those who are most vulnerable. We recognize the importance of this Committee's work as a forum for dialogue and international cooperation geared towards strengthening national capacities to promote and protect human rights on the basis of mutual respect, objectivity, and recognizing the priorities and particularities of each State. When it comes to the draft resolutions that we are considering, we would like to state that references that are made here, will be interpreted in line with our national legislation and the obligations to which we have already signed up in the international domain. With this understanding in mind, we will continue to participate constructively in this Committee's work to promote dialogue, cooperation, and the quest for agreements that can strengthen the promotion and protection of the human rights of all people. Thank you very much.


GA · Chair [29:13]:

Thank you, El Salvador. Niger has withdrawn, and so that enables me to ask the Committee whether we wish to adopt draft resolution L.9. If I hear no objection, therefore it is decided. Does any delegation wish to make a statement after the adoption of the resolution? I have the Islamic Republic of Iran. You have the floor.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [29:49]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Islamic Republic of Iran joins the consensus on this draft resolution. While my delegation reaffirms its strong commitment to upholding the dignity, welfare, and social protection of older persons as a core cultural and religious value, we wish to place on record the following reservations and interpretive declarations. The Islamic Republic of Iran emphasizes that its joining of the consensus on this resolution shall under no circumstances be construed as an acceptance, endorsement, or assumption of any legal, normative, or political obligation under any other international convention, treaty, or legally binding instrument, whether existing or proposed, to which the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a party, including those referenced in the preamble and operative paragraphs or the processes referred to in operative paragraph 73, our position remains strictly confined within the scope of the present resolution and the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing. My delegation recognizes the term “gender” and all its derivatives throughout this text to refer strictly to the two biological sexes, male and female, and rejects any non-consensual interpretations. Any references to family planning or caregiving rules must also be implemented exclusively in accordance with our national legislation, demographic priorities, and religious principles. Regarding references to the work and recommendations of the Independent Expert and other special procedures mandate-holders, particularly in operative paragraphs 13, 14, 36, and 74, my delegation reiterates that their mandates must remain strictly within the bounds of impartiality objectivity and non-selectivity without infringing upon the national sovereignty of Member States. In conclusion, the Islamic Republic of Iran disassociates itself from any terminology, concept or external legal frameworks referenced in this document that are inconsistent with our Constitution, national laws, and cultural and religious values. I thank you.


GA · Chair [31:57]:

Thank you, Iran. I also have the Holy See. Holy See, you have the floor.


Holy See [32:04]:

Mr. Chair, the delegation of the Holy See would like.

To thank the delegation of Argentina for facilitating the negotiations for the resolution entitled.

"Follow-up to the Second World Assembly on Ageing" and Uruguay for tabling it. Next year will mark the 25th anniversary of the Second World Assembly on Ageing and the adoption of the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing.

MIPA offers a holistic vision of a society.

For all ages, grounded in both human rights and development, and reflecting their interconnection.

Discussions on how best to ensure the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for older persons are underway.

In Geneva.

However, efforts to address and strengthen the developmental aspect of aging issues are no less important. Indeed, both the Third Committee and the Commission for Social Development offer vital opportunities to discuss poverty, family, intergenerational solidarity, care, and the continued contributions of older persons, including their wisdom within the context of aging.

In light of this consideration, we look forward to a substantive.

Discussion on the follow-up to the Second World Assembly in the next session. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


GA · Chair [33:22]:

Thank you, Holy See. I have no other delegation seeking to take the floor, in which case we can move to the next agenda item, item 69, right of peoples to self-determination, in order to take action on draft resolution A/C3/81/L.35, entitled "Use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination". I'd like to inform the Committee that draft resolution L/35 contains no programme budget implications, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba to make a statement. Cuba, you have the floor.


Cuba [34:12]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The persistence of the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights continues to be a source of deep concern. These practices undermine the sovereignty and independence of states, they threaten states' territorial integrity, and they are an instrument to undermine human rights and to hinder the free, the self-determination of peoples. The international community therefore has the responsibility to act firmly, in line with international law, in this domain. The United Nations Charter stipulates unequivocal principles: the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in states' internal affairs, the prohibition of the threat or use of force, and the respect of the right of peoples to decide their future. In line with this principle, and in the principle of zero tolerance in this domain, Cuba has the honour to once again present to this Committee the draft resolution, the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination. This is contained in document A/C/3/81/L.35. We would like to thank those delegations who have contributed to this process. and in particular those who supported and co-sponsored this initiative. We hope that the draft will receive the widest possible support. As a result of the importance of this topic, this should be something that can lead to consensus in the international community. If there is a need for a vote, then we would respectfully urge delegations to vote in favor. Thank you very much.


GA · Chair [36:08]:

Thank you, Cuba. As in the case of other instances, the iGov site contains details of additional co-sponsors in addition to those listed in the L document. In addition, I pass the floor to the Secretary to invite additional co-sponsors. You have the floor, Secretary.


GA · Secretary [36:26]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L/35, please signify by pressing the microphone button. I see South Africa. Kyrgyz Republic, Central African Republic. I see no further requests. Thank you.


GA · Chair [36:52]:

Thank you, Secretary. A recorded vote has been requested on draft resolution L. 35. And I now invite any delegation who wishes to make a general statement or an explanation of vote before the vote in connection with this resolution to indicate a desire to do so now. I have the United States. United States, you have the floor.


United States of America [37:19]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Last year, the United States made clear its intention to disengage from most Third Committee resolutions. We have taken the same approach this year. Revisiting the same contentious and distracting issues year after year must end. Third Committee resolutions should be short, actionable, and forward-looking. This resolution, like many others before this committee, does not meet that standard. Instead, it contains problematic language that does not advance the United Nations' core mandate of maintaining international peace and security. We firmly oppose this resolution as an effort to politicize the work of this committee, which undermines the credibility of the UN. It is the type of performative exercise that fails to improve the lives of our collective citizenry in any meaningful way. Furthermore, this resolution is fundamentally hypocritical. The people of Cuba and the world are ill served by this body consideration of it. We find Cuba's involvement in authoring a resolution on mercenaries on behalf of the non-aligned movement laughable. It has been well documented in the international press that numerous Cubans have traveled to fight in and for Russia and Venezuela. Furthermore, the claims of the Cuban government simply are not credible. It's beyond belief that the totalitarian state with a sprawling intelligence service, has no knowledge that thousands of young men of fighting age have obtained passports and left Cuba to fight without its knowledge. Cuba's alleged prosecution of those, quote, "caught in the act" is a mere slap of the wrist compared with lengthy prison sentences handed out to Cuban citizens peacefully protesting for food, water, electricity, and freedom. Accordingly, the United States will vote no on this resolution, and we encourage others to do the same. Mr. Chair, colleagues, we hope to continue working together to make the work of this committee more efficient and impactful. Thank you.


GA · Chair [39:40]:

Thank you, United States. In the absence of any other delegation seeking the floor, I will proceed to commence the process of voting on draft resolution L.35. As already stated, in accordance with rule 128, no representative may interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual process. Therefore, delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes at this time. Please proceed.


GA · Secretary [40:17]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L/35, entitled “Use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination”. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are correctly reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the voting machine.


GA · Chair [40:51]:

The result of the vote is as follows: in favour, 117; against, 54; abstentions, 7. Draft resolution A/C/3/81/L.35 is adopted. Does any delegation wish to make an explanation of vote or general statement after the vote on the resolution? The floor is open. I have Argentina. You have the floor.


Argentina [41:20]:

Thank you very much. Argentina would like to make clear its strong support for the right to self-determination of peoples who are subject to foreign occupation. This right should be understood in line with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and Resolution 1514 and other relevant resolutions of the United Nations. The right to self-determination should be applied when there is a people subject to foreign domination or subjugation. That is when Resolution 15 applies. If this situation does not exist, then the situation should be interpreted differently. in line with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Special Committee on Decolonization of the United Nations. Thank you.


GA · Chair [42:23]:

Thank you, Argentina. I have no other delegation seeking the floor. I note that the exercise of the right of reply has been requested in accordance with rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. Let me remind delegations that the number of interventions in exercise of the right of reply for any delegation at a given meeting should be limited to two per item. The first intervention is limited to five minutes and the second to three. I now give the floor to the representative of Cuba. You have requested a right of reply. Cuba, you have the floor.


Cuba [43:01]:

Mr. Chairman, I'm taking the floor in line with our right to reply to state our complete rejection of the false accusations directed by the United States, which are totally baseless and which relates to our supposed involvement in the conflict in Ukraine. This aims to confuse the international community. We categorically state that Cuba is not party to this conflict in any way, and we do not participate there or anywhere else. This is part and parcel of the lies spread by the United States to try to smear our country. We support the peaceful settlement of disputes through dialogue and negotiation, and this includes the case of Ukraine, in line with international law and the United Nations Charter. Our country has a clear history in trying to fight mercenaries. There is a zero tolerance policy to this in our country. We punish mercenaries in line with our national legislation and our international obligations. None of the Cuban citizens who have participated or participate in any parties to the conflict are supported in any way by any Cuban entity or institution. In the overwhelming majority, the recruitment of Cuban citizens, like any other citizens, is performed outside of Cuba. We have investigated 17 cases of mercenaries, and we have seen 43 cases brought to trial, and prison sentences of five and six years were handed out in the different cases. As a result of this, the involvement of certain people in these crimes is something that has been proven in some cases, and in some other cases, this is something that remains outstanding. When appropriate, Those found responsible are punished in accordance with the law. These are the facts. We reiterate our total condemnation of the use of mercenaries, and we stand ready to cooperate with other States in line with international law to prevent and combat this significant scourge wherever it may manifest itself in the world. It is paradoxical that the country that is trying to attack Cuba, the United States, decided to vote against a draft resolution that simply intends to condemn this scourge. I would just conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying the following: I request the United States delegation to inform themselves. This resolution is something that we have presented in our national capacity. Thank you.


GA · Chair [46:38]:

Thank you, Cuba. The United States has also requested the floor. I pass the floor to the United States.


United States of America [46:44]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Cuba’s outrageous lies and accusations are an attempt to deflect responsibility for decades of corruption and economic mismanagement. While the Cuban people face shortages, regime elites live opulent lifestyles, and the government continues to squander resources on high-end tourist resorts and hotels that sit empty. Press reports indicate that the military-owned conglomerate Gaesa and its subsidiaries have accumulated more than $18 billion in overseas bank accounts. The United States, meanwhile, remains one of Cuba's principal suppliers of food and medicine, including roughly half a billion dollars in agricultural exports last year, and is currently working to deliver 100 million in humanitarian assistance directly to the Cuban people through the Catholic Church and independent organizations. Thank you.


GA · Chair [47:42]:

Thank you, United States. I note that Cuba has again requested the floor. You have it.


Cuba [47:51]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The United States is once again using hostile rhetoric against Cuba on a topic that should be totally irrelevant to this. They are talking about issues that have nothing to do with the topic we're discussing here in this committee. They are complicit in the crimes of genocide against the Palestinian people, and they have carried out very many illegal military aggressions throughout the world. They have violated human rights on many different occasions, both within the country and abroad, and they have often hindered the work of the United Nations and this very committee. They are now trying to lecture other sovereign states. This is no isolated behavior. This is part and parcel of what the United States does in attacking multilateralism and international law. I wish to recall that we are talking about the only country that has refused to participate in the cycle of the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva. They did not even show up to present their national report. We're talking about an irresponsible superpower here who are trying to use force This is a matter of double standards that is crystal clear, and we will not tire of calling it out. The United States will never have the moral authority to lecture Cuba or any other country on the matter of human rights. What is regrettable for the United States is that Cuba will continue to call out these attacks and will continue to stand up for its sovereignty. Thank you.


GA · Chair [49:48]:

Thank you, Cuba. That concludes our consideration of resolution L/35, and I now invite the committee to resume consideration of agenda item 70B, human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, in order to take action on a number of draft resolutions. Let us first turn to draft resolution A/C3/81/L.29. under the title “Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights”. I inform the Committee that the resolution contains no programme budget implications. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, to make a statement. You have the floor, Cuba.


Cuba · NAM [50:40]:

Mr. Chairman, Now, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Cuba has the honour to present the traditional draft resolution entitled “Strengthening international cooperation in the domain of human rights”, which is document A/C/3/81/L.29. The promotion and protection of all human rights requires genuine international cooperation. based on the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. Dialogue and mutual respect are critical to overcome differences, to strengthen national capacities, and to make progress in ensuring the effective enjoyment of all human rights. This cooperation should be led by universality, indivisibility, objectivity, non-selectivity, transparency, and equal treatment. It cannot become an instrument for pressure, confrontation or interference, nor can it be conditioned by double standards or political considerations. On the contrary, it should foster understanding, trust and the quest for solutions. on the basis of human dignity and equality and equity. Technical assistance and capacity building can contribute to these efforts when they are in line with the priorities and needs and requests of interested states. Cooperation should support national efforts and not replace them. Dialogue between countries, cultures, and civilizations fosters tolerance and respect for diversity. It should also be inclusive, and geared towards improving the living standards of all people. For more than two decades, strengthening international cooperation in this domain has been part of the UN's agenda. This reflects the belief that the promotion and protection of human rights require collective commitment, permanent dialogue, and solidarity for the benefit of all. We would like to thank those delegations who have contributed to this initiative, and in particular those who have supported the draft over the last few years. The Non-Aligned Movement trusts that the spirit of dialogue and cooperation will prevail here, and it can therefore be approved by consensus. If there is a vote, we would respectfully invite all delegations to vote in favour of the draft. Thank you.


GA · Chair [53:13]:

Thank you, Cuba. iGov site contains additional delegations who have indicated an interest in co-sponsoring, and I give the floor to the Secretary to invite further co-sponsors to identify themselves from the floor. Secretary.


GA · Secretary [53:28]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L.29, please signify by pressing the microphone button. I see no requests.


GA · Chair [53:41]:

Thank you, Secretary. A recorded vote has been requested. on L.29, and I now invite any delegation which wishes to make a general statement or an explanation of vote before the vote in connection with L.29, please do so now. I see no delegation wishing to. I see the United States. You have the floor.


United States of America [54:08]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We firmly oppose this resolution as an effort to politicize the work of this committee, which undermines the credibility of the UN. It is the type of performative exercise that fails to improve the lives of our collective citizenry in any meaningful way. Furthermore, we find it the height of hypocrisy that Cuba, one of the world's worst human rights abusers for over six decades, continually attempts to sponsor a resolution on human rights. and sits on the UN Human Rights Council. Just recently, here at the United Nations, we hosted some of its former political prisoners who detailed their unjust imprisonment for simply writing a song the regime did not like. Experts also detailed the abuses experienced by doctors and nurses via the regime's so-called medical missions program. Earlier this week, the world witnessed Cuba's scandalous behavior live at the United Nations Assembly during the speech of the U.S. Permanent Representative. If this type of behavior occurs here, where they are comfortable displaying it towards diplomats at the United Nations, imagine what goes on behind closed doors in the Havana, which is a prison of people. We hope that all countries will speak out at the UN about the human rights violations and abuses that occur daily in Cuba. Accordingly, the United States will vote no on this resolution. Thank you.


GA · Chair [55:51]:

Thank you, United States. Cuba, you’ve sought the floor.


Cuba [56:00]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’m just taking the floor under rule 33 of the Rules of Procedure. I would like you to call on the United States to make sure that they stick to the decorum that is befitting this Committee and this General Assembly. Mr. Chairman, I would please like you to remind the delegate of the United States what happened just two weeks ago. It wasn't a performative matter; it was an overwhelming victory for Cuba and the international community over the pressure exerted by the Government of the United States. I would respectfully ask delegations not to be intimidated by this kind of hypocritical rhetoric used by the United States, and to support this draft resolution, which is not politicized in any way, on strengthening international cooperation in the domain of human rights. Thank you.


GA · Chair [57:10]:

Thank you, Cuba. I'll reflect on your request, but we will now commence the process of voting on draft resolution L.29. In accordance with rule 128, no representative may interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual process of voting. Delegations are now invited to indicate their vote. Please proceed.


GA · Secretary [57:38]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L.29, entitled “Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights.” Will all delegations confirm that their votes are correctly reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the voting machine.


GA · Chair [58:08]:

The vote is as follows: in favour 176, against 3, abstentions 3. Draft resolution A/C3/81/L29 is adopted. Does any delegation wish to make an explanation of vote or general statement after the vote on the draft resolution? If you wish to do so, please indicate now. I have Ireland. You have the floor.


Ireland · EU [58:39]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. We regret that this resolution has not reverted to being adopted by consensus. International cooperation is an essential element of the EU's external relations. We have been long-standing supporters of an international system based on strong multilateral cooperation and global governance. We reiterate that international cooperation should be based on international law, including international human rights law. We take this opportunity to express our continued and well-known reservations regarding certain elements of the resolution, and we welcome further substantial discussions with the non-aligned movement on these issues, including in the future. In addition, given the long-standing pattern of technical rollovers for this resolution, we continue to suggest making this resolution, along with other resolutions, biennial or triennial. This would be in line with the objectives of the UN80 process and the broader need to reduce the workload and increase the efficiency of this committee. Despite these considerations, the Member States of the European Union voted in favour of this resolution. Thank you.


GA · Chair [59:41]:

Thank you, Ireland. I also have New Zealand. You have the floor.


New Zealand [59:47]:

Thank you, Chair. New Zealand has voted in support of this resolution. We recall our long-standing position on texts that relate to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. Racism in all its forms is abhorrent and unacceptable. New Zealand is fully committed to combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. New Zealand supports dialogue by reaffirming the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as the basis for all efforts to prevent, combat, and eradicate racism in all its forms. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:00:16]:

Thank you, New Zealand. I have no other delegation seeking the floor, in which case that concludes our consideration of resolution L/29. We now proceed to consider resolution A/C3/81/L.30, entitled “Human rights and unilateral coercive measures”. I would like to inform the Committee that there are no programme budget implications for this resolution, and I give the floor to the representative of Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement to make a statement. You have the floor, Cuba.


Cuba · NAM [1:00:53]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Cuba has the honour to present the draft resolution entitled “Human rights and unilateral coercive measures”. This is contained in document A/C/3/81/L/30. The imposition of unilateral coercive measures that violate international law and the United Nations Charter remains a serious hindrance to development and to the enjoyment of human rights. These practices, as well as undermining fundamental principles that should govern relations between States, also affect the economic, trade and financial relations between states and hamper countries that are affected from ensuring the well-being of their citizens. Their consequences go beyond the borders of states directly affected. The extraterritorial implementation of these measures, together with the excessive Compliance with these provisions by financial institutions, as well as businesses and other entities, can hamper access to goods and services that are critical for the provision of humanitarian aid. Their effects fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable sectors, particularly women, children, older persons, and persons with disabilities. Medicines and other essential goods cannot become instruments for political pressure. No people should be deprived their means of subsistence or the necessary opportunities to reach their development. It is therefore essential for states to refrain from adopting, promulgating, or implementing unilateral coercive measures and to put an end to those that remain in force. In spite of presenting A technical update here: the resolution recognizes the proclamation of 4 December as the International Day against Unilateral Coercive Measures. This commemoration will contribute to highlighting the consequences of these practices and to promoting cooperation, solidarity, and respect for international law. We would like to thank those delegations who have contributed constructively to this initiative. And on behalf of the Unaligned Movement, we would urge all Member States to vote in favour of the draft resolution. Thank you very much.


GA · Chair [1:03:18]:

Thank you, Cuba. As is usually the case, in addition to delegations listed in the L document, the iGov sites contains a list of co-sponsors additional to the document itself, and I pass the floor to the Secretary to invite further co-sponsors.


GA · Secretary [1:03:36]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With reference to the list of sponsors on iGov, I wish to announce that the delegation of Honduras has withdrawn its sponsorship of the proposal. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L/30, please signify by pressing the microphone button. I see no requests. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:03:58]:

Thank you, Secretary. A recorded vote has been requested in relation to this resolution. I now invite any delegation who might wish to make a general statement in connection with the draft resolution or an explanation of vote before the vote to indicate a desire to do so now. I have Belarus. You have the floor.


Belarus [1:04:25]:

Chair, dear colleagues, unfortunately, once again, we have to repeat an established truth: any unilateral measures, implemented without authorization from the UN Security Council are illegal under international law. These actions have been condemned on many occasions and in many resolutions of the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly. Unilateral coercive measures have a negative impact on human rights, including the right to life, health, and medical assistance, to freedom from hunger, to a decent standard of living, food, education, labor, housing, and also the right to development. This but applies to all types of UCMs, whatever their formally stated goals or purposes may be, including economic ones, financial, political, or other sector-specific measures which are applied vis-à-vis other states, individuals, or non-governmental organizations. Alas, despite the recommendations from a special rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, and recommendations adopted by the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, UCMs are still in place, and with all of the negative consequences that it implies. In this connection, Belarus calls on delegations to support the draft resolution and put an end once and for all the practice of unilateral coercive measures. Thank you for your attention.


GA · Chair [1:06:00]:

Thank you, Belarus. I have no other delegation seeking to intervene at this stage. Accordingly, we will proceed to vote on the draft resolution. Let me remind you that no representative may interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual process. Delegations are now invited to indicate their voting preferences.


GA · Secretary [1:06:25]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution AC3/81/L.30, entitled “Human rights and unilateral coercive measures”. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are correctly reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the voting machine.


GA · Chair [1:07:06]:

Thank you, Secretary. The result of the vote is as follows: in favour, 117; against 56 and abstentions 4. Accordingly, draft resolution A/C/3/81/L.30 is adopted. Does any delegation wish to make an explanation of vote or a general statement after the vote on this resolution? I have Chile, followed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Chile, you have the floor.


Chile [1:07:42]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chile reaffirms its commitment to multilateralism and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and full respect for international law, including the promotion and protection of all human rights. Our country shares the concern about the potential negative effects of unilateral coercive measures, not just on the enjoyment of human rights, but also free trade and international cooperation. Nevertheless, we think it is necessary for this matter to be, its discussion to be based on a rigorous understanding of international law. It is not legally adequate to reaffirm that all unilateral coercive measures are contrary to international law, in line with the applicable principles, which is borne out in the work of the ILC, there are measures that can be legitimate measures provided that they reflect the limits stipulated by international law. This should therefore be interpreted in line with the circumstances of each specific case. We think it is critical, therefore, for discussions in this domain to contribute genuinely to promoting and protecting human rights and to avoid any kind of political manipulation that can be done to try to change States' obligations in this domain. As a result of this, and reiterating our commitment to human rights. Chile abstained on this resolution. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:09:17]:

Thank you, Chile. Islamic Republic of Iran, to be followed by Ireland. Iran, you have the floor.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [1:09:24]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Islamic Republic of Iran has voted in favor of the resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures. Unilateral coercive measures, in particular those imposed by the United States, constitute a clear violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. These illegal measures have severe and adverse impacts on the enjoyment of human rights by the populations of targeted countries. countries, including the right to life, health, education and development. The Islamic Republic of Iran calls for the immediate and unconditional lifting of all such measures and reiterates that genuine international cooperation in the field of human rights cannot be achieved while unilateral coercive measures continue to be weaponized by certain States. I thank you.


GA · Chair [1:10:09]:

Thank you, Iran. I pass to Ireland, to be followed by the United Kingdom. Ireland, you have the floor.


Ireland · EU [1:10:15]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, and North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina also align with this statement. We thank Cuba on behalf of the NAM for conducting informal consultations on this resolution. In light of the long-standing pattern of technical rollovers on this resolution, we continue to suggest biannualizing or triannualizing it. Given the EU's long-standing concerns regarding the content of the resolution, we voted against it. We reject the fundamental misconception reflected in the resolution that so-called, yet undefined, unilateral coercive measures without distinction negatively impact the enjoyment of human rights. The resolution does not cater for why certain measures may not be only legitimate, but necessary. Chair, the EU imposes and implements its restrictive measures in response to serious violations of international law, including of human rights law. These measures serve to uphold an international order based on international law, which should be in the interests of the entire UN membership. EU autonomous restrictive measures aim to target those, and only those, responsible for such violations. They are based on clear listing criteria and robust and compelling evidence, and fully comply with international law, including international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, and the UN Charter. They are subject to careful and systemic scrutiny by EU courts, have no extraterritorial application, and are temporary in nature. The EU makes every effort to avoid and minimize any unintended consequences of these measures, including for development cooperation and through exemptions for humanitarian assistance. Food, medicines, and emergency supplies do not fall within their scope. We recall the UN and its member states are the UN's biggest humanitarian aid donors. including in countries concerned by restrictive measures. We fully agree that addressing any unintended consequences of UN sanctions and autonomous measures is a concern that demands our collective attention. The EU has always been open to constructive dialogue on these issues and stands ready to collaborate to clarify the misconceptions underpinning UCM-related initiatives. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:12:29]:

Thank you. Ireland, United Kingdom.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:12:35]:

Thank you, Chair. The United Kingdom would like to make an explanation of vote for the resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures. We oppose this resolution. Our sanctions are imposed for specific purposes, including deterring and constraining serious human rights abuses and violations. I think of the survivors of human rights abuses who directly call upon us to impose sanctions as a form of concrete action against perpetrators who believe they can act with impunity. To be clear, UK sanctions apply to UK citizens, UK businesses, and activities taking place in the UK. We do not target civilian populations of states. Our sanctions focus on specific individuals or sectors and respond to specific activity, with a robust system of exceptions and licensing to avoid unintended consequences. There is no inconsistency or conflict between the UK sanctions and the UN Charter. Many states who actively support this resolution use their own autonomous sanctions without the UK’s regard for upholding international law and the UN Charter. We have engaged with this resolution in good faith to try to ensure it better describes the reality of how sanctions work. However, we cannot support a resolution that distorts the intent, the application, and the impact of our sanctions. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:14:01]:

Thank you, United Kingdom. I have no other delegation seeking the floor. That therefore concludes our consideration of document L/30. We now turn to draft resolution A/C/3/81/L.31, entitled “The right to development.” I’d inform the Committee that there’s no programme budget implications attached to this resolution. I give the floor to the representative of Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement to make a statement. You have the floor.


Cuba · NAM [1:14:35]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Four decades ago, this General Assembly recognized the right to development as a universal and inalienable human right. However, 40 years on, its full realization remains an outstanding matter for peoples, particularly in the Global South. For millions of people, this right remains a distant aspiration as a result of structural inequalities and an international economic order that limits their opportunities for development. The right to development is a fundamental human right. whose realization is critical for the effective enjoyment of all other rights. Denying it or preventing it means depriving peoples from the possibility to participate fully in economic, social, cultural and political life. It is therefore an honor for Cuba to present on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement the draft resolution entitled "The right to development". contained in document A/C3/81/L-31. Draft resolution L-31 reaffirms the recognition of the right to development as a universal, inalienable human right, which is based on GA resolution 41/128 and on the purpose and on the principles and goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Its content reflects the importance of ensuring its full realization and to move towards conditions that would allow all people to effectively enjoy this right. That is why, if any delegation requests a vote, the Non-Aligned Movement respectfully urges all Member States to support the draft resolution, that is to say, to vote in favor. With this support, delegations would be contributing to strengthening the promotion and recognition of a fundamental human right. This would enable all people to participate actively in a process of economic, social, cultural and political development. A development that should put human beings at the heart of these efforts and establish the necessary conditions for all human rights and fundamental freedoms to be fully realized without any kind of exclusion or discrimination. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:17:08]:

Thank you, Cuba. I have no other delegations seeking the floor. I now pass the floor to the Secretary to seek co-sponsorship, and I note that we have, of course, delegations sponsoring the resolution listed in iGov, of course. Secretary, you have the floor.


GA · Secretary [1:17:37]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L/31, please signify by pressing the microphone button. I see no requests. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:17:51]:

Thank you, Secretary. A recorded vote has been requested on L/31, the right to development. Does any delegation wish to make a general statement in connection with draft resolution L/31 or an explanation of vote before the vote? I have the United States, followed by Tunisia. United States, you have the floor.


United States of America [1:18:16]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We note that the purported right to development is not recognized in any of the core UN human rights conventions, does not have an internationally agreed definition, and unlike human rights, is not recognized as a universal right held and enjoyed by individuals, and which every individual may demand from his or her own government. Indeed, we continue to be concerned that the right to development protects states instead of individuals. This is certainly the case with the cynical, cruel, and corrupt Cuban regime, where so-called development has more to do with procuring foreign funding to bail out its failed state-controlled economy than with protecting the human rights of Cubans. Accordingly, the United States will vote no on this resolution. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:19:14]:

Thank you, United States. I pass the floor to Tunisia.


Tunisia [1:19:22]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In a connected world, Prosperity cannot be only enjoyed by some, where others continue to face poverty, exclusion, unemployment, and lack of opportunities. It is unfortunate that as we sit here at the third committee that deals with human rights, it is unfortunate indeed that the right to development is a subject of contention and it is controversial amongst us, while the right to development has been recognized as a fundamental right of human rights. Development is not only about developing countries, it is a shared interest for all. When the better future is lacking, young people will continue to risk their lives. They will look for a decent life crossing seas and oceans. They take their families towards an unknown future, or they remain in their country of origin as they await better circumstances there. And when a country enjoys sufficient resources to face a pandemic, the consequences of a pandemic can cross borders. Viruses do not need visas and do not wait in long lines before embassies to obtain these visas. Viruses do not differentiate between developing, developed, rich, or poor countries. And so When poverty exacerbates, when the divide between countries increases, the consequences of the underdevelopment is not limited in a certain region. Development and prosperity is interconnected. The right to development is not a privilege. It is not charity. the right to development as a fundamental right of human rights. We cannot build a safer and more stable world without a more just and equitable world. 40 years after recognizing this right, I believe that it is about time to translate this right and uphold it in reality through international cooperation and through a more equitable financial order that does not exclude anyone. For all these reasons, as a traditional proud co-sponsor of this resolution, we'll vote in favor, and we call on all delegations to support it as well. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:21:59]:

Thank you, Tunisia. I have no other delegations seeking the floor. Therefore, we will proceed to vote on draft resolution L.31. No representative may interrupt the voting except on a point of order in relation to the actual process of voting. Delegations are invited to indicate their votes now. Please proceed.


GA · Secretary [1:22:23]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution A/C.3/81/L.31, entitled “The right to development”. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are correctly reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the voting machine.


GA · Chair [1:22:57]:

Thank you, Secretary. The result of the vote is as follows: in favour 127, against 24, abstentions 31. Draft resolution A/C3/81/L31 is therefore adopted. Does any delegation wish to make an explanation of vote or general statement after the vote? And I have Mexico listed. Mexico, you have the floor, followed by Chile. Mexico.


Mexico [1:23:28]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mexico reaffirms its commitment to the right to development and to building fairer, more inclusive, and sustainable societies. In an international context that is characterized by increasing inequalities and challenges to multilateralism, it is critical to strengthen international cooperation and achieve sustainable development. For Mexico, people should be active participants and beneficiaries of development. This cannot just be measured in terms of economic growth; it should be translated into equal opportunities and conditions that allow all people to live in dignity without any kind of discrimination and without leaving anybody behind. We understand the right to development as a right with collective dimensions whose realization should contribute to the effective enjoyment of all human rights. We therefore reaffirm its universality, indivisibility, and interdependence. The lack of development cannot be invoked to justify restrictions on human rights or undermining economic conditions that can increase people's well-being. We also recognize the importance of an international environment that is propitious for development and international cooperation that enables us to To get beyond the barriers that countries are facing, international cooperation and the right to development should be complementary with human beings at the heart of this effort. Mexico's vision is based on shared prosperity and the conviction that well-being should be shared by all people, particularly those who have faced exclusion and marginalization in the past. This vision is borne out in terms of sustainability and equality between all peoples. That is why Mexico voted in favor of this resolution. When it comes to the right to development and its binding nature. We reiterate our availability to participate constructively in negotiations on this issue. We are in favour of an open, inclusive and transparent intergovernmental process which will allow us to address the current shortcomings and make headway on an instrument that would allow us to fully realize this right in line with international human rights. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:25:46]:

Thank you, Mexico. I have Chile to be followed by New Zealand. Chile, you have the floor.


Chile [1:25:52]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chile recognizes the importance of the right to development enshrined in the 1948 Declaration on Human Rights. We believe that the right to development is a fundamental condition to improve people's living standards, to overcome poverty, to broaden opportunities, and to foster the full enjoyment of human rights. In this regard, we believe that the promotion of the right to development should be focused on people, and it should be based on robust institutions and effective public policy in this domain to ensure that this can be borne out. Without prejudice to this, My delegation has a reservation about some terms contained in this resolution. In particular, we believe that there is still not sufficient consensus about the need, scope, and the legal implication of adopting an international legally binding instrument on the right to development. We believe that making headway towards a convention requires a rigorous assessment of its relevance, its obligations, and its link to existing international human rights law. We're concerned that Any misinterpretations of this could lead to undermining the protection of human rights. For Chile, the right to development should be strengthened in line with other human rights. We also believe it is critical to recognize that development hinges to a large extent on each state's policies. Consequently, international cooperation should complement and not replace national obligations in this area with regard to the implementation of effective policy. We also think it is critical that progress in this area is the result of an open, inclusive process between all Member States. That is why, in spite of our support to the right to development, we abstained in the voting on this resolution. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:27:56]:

Thank you, Chile. I pass to New Zealand, then Ireland. New Zealand, you have the floor.


New Zealand · Switzerland and New Zealand [1:28:01]:

Thank you, Chair. I have the honour to deliver this explanation of vote on behalf of Switzerland and my own country, New Zealand. We fully support the goal of realising the right to development for all. We reiterate our unwavering support to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which builds on the Declaration on the Right to Development and its implementation. For us, human rights and development are inextricably linked. The right to development is firmly based on the universality, indivisibility, interdependence, and interrelatedness of all human rights. States have the primary responsibility for ensuring that the right to development is realized for their own citizens, with the individual being the active participant and beneficiary of this right. Furthermore, we wish to emphasize that insufficient development can never serve as a justification for restricting human rights. We remain concerned that this resolution includes unclear concepts that risk undermining the universality of human rights and suggest a hierarchy of human rights. To achieve global progress on the right to development, it is crucial that we work to reconcile current divisions and find a common narrative. While we do not believe a new legally binding instrument on the right to development would be an appropriate mechanism for progress, we acknowledge that the Human Rights Council has submitted a draft covenant to the General Assembly for consideration. In our view, international consensus is lacking on whether a legally binding instrument is necessary, and existing human rights treaties already provide comprehensive protections for human rights. If a legally binding instrument on the right to development is to be considered by the General Assembly, this should include whether such an instrument is necessary, and whether there is sufficient consensus for it to continue to be developed, and if so, how. This is even more important in the current context of UN reform. The views of all UN Member States should be taken into account. There continues to be diverging views on this right and its implementation, and it will be important that we work together to find pragmatic solutions on those areas where further common agreement is needed. It is for these reasons that Switzerland and my own country, New Zealand, have voted against this resolution. We hope that a consensual approach can be found. I thank you.


GA · Chair [1:29:57]:

Thank you, New Zealand. I pass to Ireland, to be followed by Cuba. Ireland, you have the floor.


Ireland · EU and North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and San Marino [1:30:03]:

Thank you very much, Chair. I speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States and the candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as San Marino. We reiterate our steadfast commitment to the realization of all human rights, including the right to development. We also reaffirm our commitment to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and recall the EU and its Member States have maintained their position as the largest provider of ODA globally. The EU promotes a human rights-based approach to inclusive and sustainable development. The Declaration on the Right to Development, whose 40th anniversary we marked this year, highlights that everyone is entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy development. The realization of the right to development is inseparable from the full respect for all human rights and must be rooted in the universal, indivisible, interrelated, and interdependent nature of all human rights. Under international human rights law, states bear the primary responsibility and obligation for the full realization of all human rights. The EU thanks Cuba for leading, on behalf of the NAM, informal consultations on this resolution. We regret that only a limited number of paragraphs were opened for negotiation. and that our proposals were not incorporated into the final text. These included aligning the resolution with the principle of the universality of human rights and reflecting the role of individuals as rights holders and states as duty bearers. To advance the right to development, we must be serious about building a more just, more inclusive, and more effective multilateral system. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development remains our shared roadmap in that regard. In the context of growing challenges to the rules-based international order, It is important that approaches to realizing the right to development are grounded in international human rights law and reflect the diversity of views expressed by UN member states. This must also apply to any future negotiation process on a potential legally binding instrument. As such, an instrument cannot be effective without broad support. We consider the existing human rights treaties, mechanisms, and bodies sufficient to address the linkages between the right to development and other human rights. The EU looks forward to continuing our constructive engagement with all partners to effectively realize the right to development. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:32:21]:

Thank you, Ireland. I have Cuba.

You have the floor.


Cuba [1:32:27]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Cuba welcomes the adoption of the resolution on the right to development. Just a few months after the high-level meeting of the General Assembly, on the 40th anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development. We believe that the adoption of the International Covenant on the Right to Development is more relevant than ever. Codifying this human right within an international legally binding instrument would give it its rightful place within the international agenda. It would strengthen States' obligations in the domain of international cooperation here, and it would help us to eliminate this systemic structural barriers to development, including unilateral coercive measures. The right to development is not an abstract notion. It means people's ability to decide their own economic, social, technological destiny. For Cuba, this is a critical issue. The right to development of the Cuban people has been hindered for more than 60 years by the effects of the embargo imposed upon Cuba by the government of the United States. These are not isolated practices. They are part of a system of measures that aim to deny the Cuban people of their legitimate right to development. The brutal impact of these UCMs has only exacerbated since January of this year, and the international community is well aware of this. Through executive orders, the United States has ratcheted up its devastating measures against the Cuban economy and Cuban society. There is also a wide array of secondary sanctions imposed upon people who just have links with Cuba. As a result of this, this is collective punishment, and the Cuban people are suffering from repeated blackouts and shortages of water and essential services, including food. The Cuban people is well aware of who is behind this, which is the Government of the United States. And they say that they use this absurd pretext that our small island is a threat to the United States, in spite of the fact it's a superpower in the world. Simply absurd. As a result of this, the High Commissioner has also mentioned the fact that these unilateral coercive measures deny the Cuban people of the right to development. As we say, these are the facts. I conclude by reiterating Cuba’s commitment to continue to advocate for this right to development for all peoples. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:35:21]:

Thank you, Cuba. I have no other delegation seeking the floor, in which case that brings to an end our consideration of document L.31. We will now consider draft resolution AC.3. I beg your pardon, A/C/3/81/L32, entitled “Promotion of peace is a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of human rights by all”. The resolution has – the draft contains no programme budget implications. I again give the floor to Cuba to introduce the resolution. Cuba, you have the floor.


Cuba [1:36:01]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Peace cannot be reduced to the lack of armed conflict. It is an essential condition for all people to live in dignity, to fully enjoy their rights and to determine their own destiny. When there is the threat of force or the use of force, international security is weakened and the possibilities for development and well-being are also undermined. Building genuine, lasting peace requires abiding by the United Nations Charter, the sovereign equality between states, non-interference in states' internal affairs, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and the prohibition of the threat or use of force. It also requires political will to strengthen cooperation, dialogue, and education for peace. With this belief, Cuba presents before this Committee in its national capacity the draft resolution entitled “Promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of human rights by all”. In a world characterized by war and deep-seated crises, this initiative is in line with efforts by the international community to promote people’s right to peace, through GA resolution 79/169 and other resolutions, the General Assembly reaffirmed that peace is a vital requirement for the promotion and protection of all human rights, and it decided to continue reviewing this issue at the eighty-first session. We would like to thank all delegations who have contributed constructively to this process, as well as those who have supported and co-sponsored this draft. Their support bears witness to the importance of maintaining this item on the multilateral agenda. We trust that this document, in line with the purposes and principles of the Charter and international law, can be adopted by consensus. If there is a vote requested, we respectfully urge all delegations to vote in favour. I thank you.


GA · Chair [1:38:05]:

Thank you, Cuba. The co-sponsors, including additional co-sponsors, of L/32 are reflected on iGov and, of course, the document itself. I pass the floor to the Secretary to invite further co-sponsors to identify themselves.


GA · Secretary [1:38:24]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L/32, please signify by pressing the microphone button. I see South Africa. And I see no further requests. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:38:38]:

Thank you, Secretary. A recorded vote has been requested on this resolution, and I now invite any delegation which wishes to make a general statement or explanation of vote before the vote is taken to indicate a desire to do so. Now I have the United States. You have the floor.


United States of America [1:39:02]:

Thank you, Chair. Again, we find it the height of hypocrisy that Cuba, a country with one of the world’s worst human rights records for six decades, continues to attempt to sponsor a resolution related to human rights. As we have stated repeatedly, the United States does not agree with the definition of a collective right to peace. Human rights are universal and are held and exercised by individuals. We do not support efforts that in any way modify or stifle individuals' exercise of existing human rights and fundamental freedoms. Because of this resolution improperly frames existing human rights, the United States will vote no. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:39:47]:

Thank you, United States. We will now commence the process of voting on draft resolution L/32. As stated before, No representative is in a position to interrupt the voting except on a point of order in relation to the actual process. Delegations are invited to indicate their votes now.


GA · Secretary [1:40:12]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L.32, entitled “Promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of human rights by all”. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are correctly reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the voting machine.


GA · Chair [1:40:44]:

Thank you, Secretary. The vote is as follows: in favour 122, against 54, abstentions 3. Accordingly, draft resolution A/C/3/81/L.32 is adopted. Does any delegation wish to make an explanation of vote or make a statement following the vote on the resolution? I have Cuba. You have the floor.


Cuba [1:41:18]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We would like to thank Member States for supporting the adoption of this draft resolution on the promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of human rights by all. Mr. Chairman, what is hypocritical is that the country that promotes military invasions against other sovereign countries in clear violation of international law, which clearly has a major impact on human rights, is calling for a vote on this draft resolution. The hundreds and thousands of deaths that have been caused by the United States actions, did those people not have rights, or were those rights less important? The United States carries out extrajudicial executions, acts of torture, and they have acted in this way for years without any kind of explanations being given. Nobody has been held accountable for these violations of human rights over the years. So what is then the purpose of this delegation asking for a vote? Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:42:48]:

Thank you, Cuba. I have no other delegation seeking the floor. Therefore, that concludes our consideration. I beg your pardon. I have the United States. You have the floor.


United States of America [1:42:59]:

Yeah, Mr. Chair, just a quick remark on a statement that has been repeated many times that there is a blockade against Cuba. There is no blockade against Cuba.


GA · Chair [1:43:08]:

I’m so sorry, United States. Is this a point of order? And if so, could you articulate it as a point of order?


United States of America [1:43:14]:

Yes. Right of reply.


GA · Chair [1:43:20]:

United States, that’s later. So it’s certainly open to you to make a point of order in relation to the process at this stage.


United States of America [1:43:25]:

Otherwise the right of reply.


GA · Chair [1:43:27]:

Understood. No problem at all. Thank you. In that case, I have no. So that concludes our consideration of document L.32, and we now turn to draft resolution A/C3/81/L.33, entitled Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order. There are no programme budget implications in relation to this resolution. Once again, I give the floor to the representative of Cuba to make a statement. You have the floor.


Cuba [1:44:15]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Building a genuinely democratic and equitable international order remains something that cannot be put off any longer. The deep-seated asymmetries that characterize international relations hamper our people's opportunities for development, and they perpetuate a system in which developing countries continue to face structural obstacles and a lack of participation in global decision-making fora. The scope of these inequalities is clear for all to see. According to UN data, some 3 billion people live in countries whose governments have to devote more resources to paying interest on their debt than to health and education combined. In addition, the annual funding gap to achieve the SDGs in development is some $4 trillion. This reality clearly shows the urgent need to transform these economic and financial structures. With this in mind, Cuba once again presents, in its national capacity, the draft resolution entitled “The promotion of a democratic and equitable international order”, contained in document A/C/3/81/L.33. Bringing about this state of affairs requires the full respect for the sovereignty and equality between states, the self-determination of peoples, and international cooperation. It means strengthening multilateralism and moving towards a more inclusive global governance, ensuring all countries have effective participation on an equal footing in this system. The reform of the international financial architecture, equal access to resources, and compliance with fulfilling pledges for financing for development must be part and parcel of these efforts. We would like to thank delegations who have contributed to this initiative and who have supported the initiative over the years. We trust that this draft resolution can be adopted by consensus. If there is a vote requested, we would respectfully urge all delegations to vote in favour of it. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:46:23]:

Thank you, Cuba. Co-sponsors of this document are identified on IGov. The Secretary will now invite further co-sponsors to identify themselves.


GA · Secretary [1:46:35]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L/33, please signify by pressing the microphone button. I see Jamaica, South Africa, Bahamas, Burkina Faso, and Mali. I see no further requests. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:46:56]:

Thank you.


GA · Secretary [1:46:58]:

As well as Niger.


GA · Chair [1:47:03]:

Thank you, Secretary. A recorded vote has been requested on draft resolution A/C/3/81/L.33 on promotion of a democratic and equitable international order. Does any delegation wish to make a general statement in relation to this draft resolution or an explanation of vote before the vote is taken? United States, you have the floor.


United States of America [1:47:32]:

Thank you, Chair. Again, we find it the height of hypocrisy that Cuba, a country with one of the world's worst human rights records for six decades, continues to attempt to sponsor resolutions on human rights. We hope that all countries will speak out at the UN about the human rights violations and abuses that occur daily in Cuba. Even more insulting to this body is that Cuba, a state-run by an oppressive regime, would dare to put forward any resolution citing the virtues of democracy, universal human rights, and the rule of law. The regime does this while Cubans live under daily repression, deprived of freedom and the necessities of life. Cubans cannot even peacefully protest or voice disagreement publicly. or on social media with the communist regime without fear of reprisals, including beatings, intimidation, and imprisonment. The United States remains concerned about Cuba's mischaracterization of human rights, including purported right to development, peace, and international solidarity, which are inconsistent with the framework of universal human rights guaranteed to individuals. Accordingly, the United States will vote no on this resolution.


GA · Chair [1:49:00]:

Thank you, United States. I have Cuba seeking the floor. You have the floor, Cuba.


Cuba [1:49:06]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I’d like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for upholding the rules when we were presenting the previous draft resolution. In addition, in line with rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure, I would just like you to remind the United States delegation of the need to respect decorum. We are talking about a body here in which all States are represented and in which Representatives must speak respectfully and should respect the UN Charter and should be mindful about the terminology they use here to refer to other States. We can't accept these repeated attempts to smear our people, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:50:03]:

Thank you, Cuba. We will now undertake the voting process on draft resolution L.33. I note that no representative can interrupt except on a point of order in relation to that process. All delegations are invited to indicate their vote presently.


GA · Secretary [1:50:30]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution AC/3/81/L.33, entitled “Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order”. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are correctly reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the voting machine.


GA · Chair [1:51:04]:

Thank you, Secretary. The result of the vote is as follows: in favour 119, against 55, abstentions 8. Accordingly, draft resolution A/C3/81/L.33 is adopted. Does any delegation wish to make an explanation of vote or general statement after the vote on that document? I have no delegation seeking the floor, in which case that concludes our consideration of resolution L/33, and we turn now to draft resolution A/3. I'm sorry, A/C3/81/L34, entitled "The right to food", and I would inform the Committee that there are no budget implications arising from this resolution. I invite the delegation of Cuba to introduce this resolution. Cuba, you have the floor.


Cuba [1:52:09]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Hunger remains one of the most serious expressions of inequality and an affront to human dignity. According to data from the FAO, 645 million people throughout the world suffered hunger in 2025, and 2.1 billion experienced moderate or serious food insecurity. It is unacceptable that millions of people continue to be deprived of such an essential right. Convinced that the promotion and protection of this fundamental human right requires sustained commitment by the entire international community, Cuba once again presents this draft resolution entitled “The Right to Food”, contained this year in document A/C/3/81/L.34. This document is the result of open, inclusive consultations. It reaffirms the urgent need to eradicate hunger, malnutrition and poverty, and to build food systems that can ensure that all people have stable access to sufficient, nutritious food. The right to food should not be subject to political differences. Its attainment requires international cooperation and genuine will to deal with the structural causes of hunger and to support the efforts of developing countries in this domain. This resolution should not be contentious, it does not contain language that is of concern to the international community, and over the years it has always been able to give rise to a great deal of consensus. Its contents have been a bridge between the North and the South, developed countries and developing countries, in the common quest for a world with zero hunger, in which all people can reach this fundamental right. We would like to thank all delegations who have contributed to this process and the co-sponsors, and those who have supported this initiative over the years. We hope that the draft will once again be widely supported. If there is a vote requested, we respectfully urge all delegations to vote in favour of this in document L/34. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:54:25]:

Thank you, Cuba. All existing co-sponsors are identified on iGov. I now give the floor to the Secretary to invite further delegations to indicate their wish to co-sponsor.


GA · Secretary [1:54:40]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L/34, please signify by pressing the microphone button. I see Jamaica, South Africa, Guyana, Brazil, Peru, Maldives, Burkina Faso, Suriname, Central African Republic, Mali, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bahamas, Djibouti, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Gambia, Belize, Mali, Comoros, Nigeria, Ghana, Sudan. If delegations who have been called can kindly unpress their buttons. Peru. and Kenya. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:56:06]:

Thank you, Secretary. A recorded vote has been requested on this resolution. And let me open the opportunity for any delegation wishing to make a statement or explanation of vote in advance of the vote. To do so, I have the United States, followed by Ireland. United States, you have the floor.


United States of America [1:56:26]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I find it the height of hypocrisy that Cuba, once a great agricultural producing country that used to lead the world in sugar exports, and which has had to import sugar since the 1990s because the regime ruined its production capacity with blind devotion to a communist centrally planned economy, gross incompetence and corruption, would have the nerve to sponsor a resolution on food security. The Cuban government should enact immediate economic and political reforms so it can again become the food exporting country it once was. They also like to blame an imaginary blockade for its underdevelopment under the communist regime. In reality, Cuba trades with all the countries in the world, and even with the United States, it traded about half a billion dollars just last year. Furthermore, this resolution continues to contain problematic, inappropriate language that does not belong in a resolution focused on human rights. The United States remained concerned with Cuba's mischaracterization of human rights, notably the right to an adequate standard of living, including food, as reflected in the UDHR and ICESCR. Further, we do not concur with any reading of this resolution that would suggest that sovereign states have particular extraterritorial obligations arising for a right to adequate food. Accordingly, the United States will vote no on this resolution.


GA · Chair [1:58:06]:

Thank you, United States. I pass the floor to Ireland.


Ireland · EU [1:58:13]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states. The resolution on the right to food has traditionally been adopted by consensus, and we thank the facilitator, Cuba, for once again conducting negotiations with that objective in mind and for their constructive collaboration. We therefore regret that a vote has been called. The SDG targets on eliminating hunger, improving nutrition, ending poverty, and promoting sustainable agriculture are central to the 2030 agenda. They remain crucial to the European Union. This resolution makes an important contribution to advancing these goals through the realization of a right to food. The Member States of the European Union will therefore vote yes on the resolution, and we encourage others to do the same. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:58:57]:

Thank you, Ireland. In the absence of any other delegation seeking the floor, we will now proceed to vote, and delegations are asked to indicate their voting intention presently.


GA · Secretary [1:59:16]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L/34, entitled “The right to food”. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are correctly reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the voting machine.


GA · Chair [1:59:44]:

Thank you, Secretary. The result of the vote is as follows: in favour 175, against 3, abstentions 3. Accordingly, draft resolution A/C/3/81/L.34 is adopted. Does any delegation wish to make an explanation of vote or general statement after the vote? I have Cuba, followed by El Salvador. Cuba, you have the floor.


Cuba [2:00:17]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The obsession of the United States with a peaceful country such as Cuba is a clinical, pathological case that medical professionals should look into. We are dismayed by this attitude of the United States and their inability to engage constructively in a process that is so critical for so many members of the international community. The right to food is an inalienable human right, and it should be guaranteed for all, without any exceptions. The numbers speak for themselves: 175 countries voted in favour, in contrast to three. We believe that the United States is therefore seriously in the wrong here. We would like to thank all delegations for their robust support to this resolution. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:01:28]:

Thank you, Cuba. I pass to El Salvador, to be followed by the United States. El Salvador, you have the floor.


El Salvador [2:01:36]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. El Salvador reiterates the right that all people have to food. We recognize that states have the main responsibility for realizing this right and the importance of international cooperation to broaden access to food, in particular for people in the most vulnerable communities in our societies. El Salvador believes that food should not be used as an instrument for political pressure. We believe that this resolution should focus the efforts of the General Assembly on common commitments to prevent hunger and to guarantee access to adequate food. When it comes to the references to UCMs mentioned in the resolution, we believe that the review of these should be carried out in a forum devoted to this topic. That is why we dissociate it exclusively from the references to UCMs in PP 16. Having said that, El Salvador supported the resolution and thus reiterated our support for efforts from the General Assembly to reaffirm efforts to uphold the right to food. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:02:51]:

Thank you, El Salvador. United States, I understand you have a point of order. United States, please proceed.


United States of America [2:02:57]:

Yeah, I would like to make a point of request the Chair to remind the Cuban delegate about the quorum contradicts his statements before and his complaint about the smear campaign. And I wonder if he's a doctor because he talks about clinical and pathological things.


GA · Chair [2:03:17]:

Thank you, United States. I just would remind delegations that we We have particular rules in relation to either when you make a statement or when you can make points of order, so I would encourage all delegations to conform with that. That concludes our consideration of resolution L/34, and we now turn to draft resolution A/C/3/81/L.37/Rev.1, entitled "Extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions." and the amendments to draft resolution L-37/Rev/1 contained in documents L-53, L-65 and L-66. I would like to inform the Committee that there are no budgetary implications in relation to these documents. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Finland to make a statement on behalf of the Nordic countries. You have the floor.


Finland · Nordic Group · Permanent Representative [2:04:23]:

Mr. Chair, colleagues, Finland is honored to introduce this draft resolution L-37 on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions on behalf of the Nordic countries. The resolution is biannual and has been presented since 1996. The aim of the resolution is to reaffirm the duty of states under international law first to protect all individuals from illegal killings without discrimination, and second, to investigate all potentially unlawful killings and bring the perpetrators to justice. The resolution reflects our shared commitments on two principles: the right to life and fight against impunity. The resolution about right to life is pivotal for the respect and protection of all other human rights. This year, the resolution includes only technical updates. As a part of the UN 80 rationalization efforts, we have reduced the number of the reports mandated by this resolution. Based on the amendment proposed, we have further clarified and strengthened the language in the paragraph, operative paragraph, listing groups vulnerable to illegal killings. We would like to thank delegations for their active and constructive participation throughout the process. Mr. Chair, dear colleagues, by adopting this resolution, this Committee will give its support to combat extrajudicial killings in all their forms. We hope that this Committee will express support to this resolution and send a loud message defending the right to life without any discrimination. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:06:12]:

I thank the Permanent Representative of Finland. Delegations who have co-sponsored this resolution are identified on iGov, and I now give the floor to the Secretary to invite delegations who wish to co-sponsor from the floor to do so.


GA · Secretary [2:06:29]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L.37, revision 1, please signify by pressing the microphone button. I see South Africa. and Costa Rica, as well as Gabon and the Dominican Republic. I see no further requests.


GA · Chair [2:06:54]:

Thank you, Secretary. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Egypt to introduce – I beg your pardon – to make a statement in connection with the amendment contained in document L/53. Egypt, you have the floor.


Egypt · Group of OIC Member States and other co-sponsors [2:07:13]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Egypt takes the floor to introduce the amendment submitted on behalf of a group of OIC Member States and other co-sponsors, 55 countries as listed in document L/53. And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except by right. This is how clear and unambiguous the Holy Quran, like other religions and faiths, is in prohibition of unlawful killings, thousands of years before the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international legal instruments that enshrined the right to life, liberty, and security of person. The proponents of this amendment unequivocally condemn and reject all forms of extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions. These abhorrent crimes constitute violations of fundamental human rights and stand in stark contradiction to cultural, societal, and religious values, as well as the principles of justice and the sanctity of human life. Such crimes, whenever and wherever they occur, must be criminalized, investigated, prosecuted, and their perpetrators brought to justice and be punished by a competent court of law. The proponents of this amendment also recognize that certain individuals and groups under specific circumstances and in particular settings face heightened vulnerability to unlawful killings. For this reason, many national legal systems have introduced additional and specific measures aimed at ensuring effective accountability and redress. More than 10 years ago, the pin holders of this resolution insisted on introducing the controversial and non-consensual terminology of sexual orientation and gender identity. Ever since, consensus on the subject matter of critical importance has been broken year after year, while the circle of trust surrounding the text progressively eroded. The insistence on advancing terminology and the platform espoused by certain Member States has deprived many other countries of the opportunity to join consensus around the resolution whose message is undisputed and whose objective is imperative. This year, we once again presenting an amendment adopting an even more reasonable and accommodating approach that gives due consideration to the various factors that place individuals and groups at heightened risk. Our proposed amendment offers an inclusive formulation that can resonate with all, without imposition or division. It takes into account a wide range of circumstantial and geographical factors, while above all preserving the objective of the paragraph and its emphasis on the heightened risks faced by certain individuals. Regrettably, rev 1 of the draft resolution sought to circumvent the underlying cause of disagreement rather than addressing them and providing a sustainable pathway towards consensus. I wish to conclude by stressing that this amendment should not be perceived as a hostile gesture, but rather as an olive branch and a bridge towards restoring the broad support that this resolution once enjoyed. We ask delegations to vote in favour.


GA · Chair [2:10:14]:

Thank you, Egypt. Existing co-sponsors of L/53 are identified on iGov, and I now give the floor to the Secretary to invite identification of further co-sponsors. You have the floor.


GA · Secretary [2:10:29]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor the amendment contained in document L.53, please signify by pressing the microphone button. I see Niger and Gabon. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:10:52]:

Thank you, Secretary. I now give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation to make a statement in connection with the amendments contained in documents L/65 and L/66. Russian Federation, you have the floor.


Russian Federation [2:11:08]:

Thank you, Chair. The Russian Federation takes a very responsible approach to the process of developing agreed international approach. to tackle the horrors of extrajudicial summary and arbitrary executions. In this connection, we are of the view that the draft on this topic put forward for consideration at the Committee by countries of Northern Europe should focus on finding ways of overcoming existing problems, on not stoking confrontation on secondary issues. Looking at L-37 as an effective and implementable guidance for action is only possible if secondary elements that are not agreed on intergovernmental level have been removed. In this connection, the Russian Federation has submitted an amendment to PP18, proposing to delete reference to the Rome Statute of the so-called International Criminal Court. This step is something that we see as more relevant than ever in the circumstances when more and more countries are stopping participating in this document, and the crisis of trust in the ICC is clear. Secondly, the amendment deletes from this paragraph the concept of the responsibility to protect, which is not recognized by many countries. And under the cover of which, as history has shown, its allies interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states, destroying their state, economy, and destabilizing the situation in these countries as a whole. We don't see how these aforementioned elements can help achieving the declared goals of the resolution. We also propose to delete from the text OP 16, which contains inappropriate complementary assessments of the activities of the ICC. The real destructive nature of the work of this pseudo-judicial structure is becoming clearer by the year, and to more and more countries. It has discredited itself through double standards, through biased and politicized approaches. It continues to violate the norms of international law. It arbitrarily interprets its own statute. And this whole time, the ICC has not helped resolve conflicts. It has actually hindered normal interstate interactions, and it has not, and it has also not done anything to address this sorry state of affairs. In this connection, the Russian Federation intends to vote in favour of both proposed amendments and would call on members of the Committee to do the same. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:13:56]:

Thank you, Russian Federation. I now pass to the Secretary.


GA · Secretary [2:14:03]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor the amendment contained in document L/65, please signify by pressing the microphone button. I see Belarus. I see no further requests on L/65. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor the amendment contained in document L/66, please signify by pressing the microphone button. I see Belarus. And I see no further requests. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:14:39]:

Thank you, Secretary. In accordance with rule 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, we will first take a decision on the proposed amendments. Recorded votes have been requested on the amendments to draft resolution L37/Rev1, contained in document L53, L65 and L66. Does any delegation wish to make a general statement or an explanation of vote before the vote in connection with any or all of the amendments to draft resolution L-37/Rev.1, as contained in documents L-53, L-65 and L-66. I have a number of delegations seeking the floor. Let me start with identifying the first tranche: Finland, France, Ireland, Montenegro, Liechtenstein, Mexico. Finland, you have the floor.


Finland · Nordic Group · Permanent Representative [2:15:37]:

Mr. Chair, Nordic countries strongly oppose the proposals to amend the procedural paragraph 18 and the operative paragraphs 8b and 16. And few words why. The operative paragraph 8b includes a list of groups of persons that are more vulnerable to being murdered illegally. And that list is factual based on UN sources. It's a factual list. The list includes, for example, minorities, refugees, internally displaced persons, migrants, street children, etc. It also includes unlawful executions that are committed because of someone's real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Fact is that certain groups of individuals are more likely than others to become victims of illegal killings. They are also more likely to be victims of impunity. These many groups have been mentioned in the resolution for over 20 years to highlight their vulnerability. The motivation to mention them is to try to protect these groups. It is to highlight their vulnerability. There are different views of certain aspects relating to sexual orientation and gender identity in this room, and that is well noted. This resolution does not try to contribute that discussion. This resolution tries to contribute protection of all individuals, no matter what is their status or identity. Removing one group from this list does not change the fact that this is a reality. What we think that Not adding or taking group out of the list will actually show that there is a degree of impunity for the killings connected to this group. So I think it's important to really emphasize that this is a list of vulnerable people. It's not trying to promote certain ideologies, as was indicated by some delegates. The paragraph does not impose any domestic legal matters, but reaffirms the existing commitment when it comes to illegal killings. In PP18 and OP16, the text refers to the role of the International Criminal Court ending impunity. The text refers to the states that are, and I quote, "under obligation to cooperate with the Court" and does not pose any new obligations to the States that have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute. The Nordic countries will therefore vote against the amendments and will respectfully urge others to do the same. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:18:36]:

I thank the Permanent Representative of Finland. I pass to the representative of France.


France [2:18:47]:

Thank you, Chair. Much like Finland, France reaffirms its tireless commitment to the protection of the right to life of all and our full support to the resolution on extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions put forward by the Nordic countries. It's because of this commitment that France will vote against this hostile amendment to delete from 8B reference to sexual orientation and gender identity. This amendment distracts attention from the fundamental goal of this resolution, which is guaranteeing the right to life of all without discrimination or distinction. No difference between national legislation could justify that someone be arbitrarily deprived of their life, including of their sexual orientation or gender identity, real or supposed. Extrajudicial executions because of orientation, whether this be real or supposed, exist and have unfortunately been documented. Even some countries that don't recognize gender identity other than biological ones, we cannot allow this non-recognition justifies in any way extrajudicial execution, and that's what the resolution states, no more, no less. That's why paragraph 8B calls for rapid and impartial investigations on executions, particularly when they are motivated by sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim. No country should oppose that. Whatever their legislation or conceptions, reference attached by this amendment in no way recognizes specific rights of certain categories of people, but only reaffirms a fundamental principle: the right to life is universal, unconditional and must be guaranteed for all without exception. France will also vote against the amendment to delete the reference to the ICC. At a time when the protection of the right to life is indissociable from the fight against impunity, weakening recognition of the essential role of the ICC in prosecuting the most serious crimes would undermine the very ambition of this resolution, which is to ensure that no extradition summary or arbitrary execution goes unpunished. Concerned as we are to preserve an ambitious resolution that respects everyone's rights, France will vote in favor of the resolution and against the amendments. We also strongly encourage other delegations to do the same. Thank you, Chair.


GA · Chair [2:21:18]:

Thank you, France. I pass to Ireland, followed by Montenegro. Ireland, you have the floor.


Ireland · EU [2:21:25]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as San Marino, also aligned with this statement. The EU and its Member States remain firmly committed to preventing and ending extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in all circumstances and ensuring accountability for such crimes. For more than 20 years, this resolution has included a paragraph, OP.8.b, urging states to investigate illegal killings, including when they are targeted specific groups of individuals at higher risk of being victims of illegal executions. The list of these vulnerable groups is evidence-based. It is drawn on the reporting of the UN Special Rapporteurs and comments given by the UN Human Rights Committee over the years. The long list mentions, for example, national, ethnic, and religious minorities, refugees, migrants, internally displaced persons, and persons executed due to racism or on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Based on the request by delegations, the text was further strengthened by the co-facilitators to cover "any other considerations" that may lead to heightened risk of an illegal execution. This addition was made in response to the delegations who have tabled the amendment. With that element now incorporated in the text, what remains of the amendment is a deletion and nothing else. The amendment tabled by a group of countries suggests deleting one group of persons in the list. We believe that such a deletion would give the wrong signal. Any of these vulnerable groups has the same right to be protected against illegal killings and the same right to life as any other. That is why EU Member States will vote no on that amendment, and we strongly urge others to do the same. One delegation has also tabled amendments to remove references to the International Criminal Court. The EU and its Member States are steadfast and unwavering in our support for the International Criminal Court as a cornerstone of the rules-based international order and as a vital institution in the global fight against impunity. We also highlight that the resolution does not create any new obligations for states that have not ratified or signed the Rome Statute. That is why EU Member States will vote no on that amendment, and we also strongly urge others to do the same. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:23:46]:

Thank you, Ireland. I pass to Montenegro, to be followed by Liechtenstein. Montenegro.


Montenegro [2:23:51]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Montenegro remains firmly committed to the promotion and protection of human rights for all without discrimination. The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, and its protection must be guaranteed to every individual, regardless of who they are. In this regard, we wish to express our concern over the proposed amendments, especially the one seeking to remove the explicit reference to sexual orientation and gender identity from OP8. We believe that recognizing particular risks faced by certain groups does not create a hierarchy of rights, nor does it diminish the protection afforded to others. On the contrary, it helps that those who are especially vulnerable to violence and discrimination are not overlooked. The reference to sexual orientation and gender identity reflects the reality that individuals continue to face violence, including unlawful killings, because of who they are or whom they love. Acknowledging these risks is essential to ensuring effective prevention, investigation, and accountability. We believe that the existing language strikes the right balance between ensuring protection for all and explicitly recognizing groups facing particular risks. The revised draft already provides for the protection of persons who may be at a heightened risk for other reasons. Removing the reference to sexual orientation and gender identity would therefore not strengthen the text, but weaken its recognition of specific and well-documented forms of violence and discrimination. Mr. Chair, at a time when human rights protection are facing growing challenges, we should seek to preserve and strengthen the commitments already established within this Committee, not reduce them. For these reasons, Montenegro will vote against the proposed amendments and call on all delegations to preserve the existing language of the draft resolution. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:25:43]:

Thank you, Montenegro. Liechtenstein, you have the floor.


Liechtenstein · Australia, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein [2:25:47]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have the honor to speak on behalf of Australia, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and my own country, Liechtenstein. We wish to thank Finland for the commendable work trying to find consensus, including through the use of language from previous iterations of this resolution. The paragraphs acknowledging the Rome Statute and welcoming the International Criminal Court as an important contribution to ending impunity concerning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions have been adopted by this Committee since 2008. We find it all the more regrettable that two amendments have been tabled for the deletion of the references to the ICC. At a time when serious human rights violations continue to rise worldwide, we must uphold our support for the institutions that ensure accountability for the most serious international crimes, including sexual and gender-based crimes. With the International Criminal Court, the international community established the only permanent court mandated to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of the gravest crimes under international law, where national systems are unable or unwilling to act. recognizing the primary responsibility of states to investigate and prosecute such crimes, and the Court's role as a court of last resort, and to deliver accountability for victims and survivors, including through the practical support and rehabilitation it provides through the Trust Fund for Victims. Removing the references to the ICC would send the wrong message at the wrong moment, that this Committee is hesitant to acknowledge and engage with the very institutions that give meaning to the promise of accountability. As strong supporters of the ICC and its work, we will vote against the amendments and call upon all Member States to do the same. I thank you.


GA · Chair [2:27:28]:

Thank you, Liechtenstein. The next tranche of speakers will be Mexico, United Kingdom, Brazil, Australia, Uruguay, and Niger. Mexico, you have the floor.


Mexico [2:27:40]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As a traditional co-sponsor of this resolution, Mexico wished to strengthen language on the protection of the right to life, but we respect the decision of the co-facilitators to limit the exercise to a technical update to preserve the agreements that have been reached, and we thank them for their work. Mexico rejects the amendment put forward by Egypt on behalf of the OIC to delete pp. 8 on the references to sexual identity. This is a hostile amendment that is trying to reopen a closed paragraph. These practices erode trust and weaken our methods of work. But our deeper concern is related to the substance. We are talking about human rights and their right to live. No person should be killed because of who they are. No political, cultural, or religious difference can justify these crimes, their tolerance or impunity. We all know that prejudice is linked to sexual identity and can lead to violence. This is just trying to recognize this violence and ensure that people perpetrators of these crimes are brought accountable. Cultural differences cannot be invoked to justify any shirking from the universal duty to protect people's lives. What is the justification behind deleting this language? What is wrong with calling for justice for assassinations based on these pretexts? Deleting this as a and replacing it with a generic wording just makes this matter invisible. Deleting these references sends a deeply alarming message. There is an aim to delete the express mention of the victims and the reasons why they are being attacked. Mexico categorically rejects any attempt to establish a hierarchy between human lives, and we reject the two amendments put forward by the Russian Federation to eliminate references to the ICC in PP20/13. 8 and 16. As a State Party to the Rome Statute, we reaffirm our full support to the Court, its independence, and its contribution to the fight against impunity. Deleting these references weakens the message of this resolution in favour of justice and accountability. Mexico will vote against the three amendments, and we invite all delegations to do likewise. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:30:26]:

Thank you, Mexico. United Kingdom.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [2:30:31]:

Thank you, Chair. The United Kingdom welcomes the tabling of the UN resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. We support the text of this resolution as proposed by the Nordic countries, and we thank Finland for their inclusive approach as facilitator. This resolution relates to the duty of states to protect all individuals from extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions without discrimination. It rightly recognizes that some individuals face additional risk of extrajudicial killings, including those marginalized as a result of their sexual orientation or gender identity. We agree that the resolution should call for states to factor in all considerations that lead to the heightened risk of extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions to ensure the effective protection of the right to life of all persons. It is also important that the resolution refers to the gender-related killing of women and girls, as well as to other groups, including those murdered in racially motivated attacks, persons with disabilities, national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, members of indigenous communities, and the killings of persons for reasons related to their activities as human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists, or demonstrators, amongst others. We are aware that there are differences in perspectives among UN member states in relation to matters pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity. However, it should be noted that this resolution does not impinge on any domestic legal matters. It merely urges all states to ensure the protection and right to life of all persons without discrimination. We are sure that partners would agree that this responsibility should be upheld and that no one deserves to be murdered. regardless of any cultural or religious difference in perspective. We therefore urge all delegations to support the technical update of this resolution and to vote against the amendments. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:32:34]:

Thank you, United Kingdom. I pass to Brazil.


Brazil [2:32:39]:

Thank you, Chair. The mission of Brazil thanks Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden for presenting this important resolution on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions. We regret that, once again, an amendment has been tabled to delete the reference to sexual orientation and gender identity to the text. We believe that the Third Committee should serve as a safe and constructive space for multilateral dialogue and for shedding light on the realities and discrimination faced by individuals for a variety of reasons, including on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity. Removing this language will not advance our collective efforts to address the structural violence that continues to affect LGBTQIA+ persons. We recognize that serious challenges remain in safeguarding their rights worldwide, addressing discrimination and violence against all individuals, without exception. is both a fundamental responsibility of States and an obligation that we must uphold. It is deeply concerning that LGBTQIA+ persons continue to be subjected to killings and executions simply because of who they are. This reality exists in all regions of the world, including in my own country. The General Assembly cannot turn a blind eye to this reality, nor can it pretend that it does not exist by erasing this important language. For these reasons, Brazil will vote against this amendment and calls on all Member States to do the same. Brazil will also vote against the amendments on references to the International Criminal Court. Brazil remains firmly committed to the principles that inspired the Rome Statute and to the conviction that the most serious international crimes must not go unpunished. I thank you.


GA · Chair [2:34:41]:

Thank you, Brazil. Australia.


Australia · Canada, New Zealand, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Australia [2:34:45]:

Thank you, Chair. I have the honour to deliver this explanation of vote on behalf of Canada, New Zealand, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and my own country, Australia. We thank Finland for its leadership throughout the process of this resolution. Extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions are a violation of the right to life. No person, under no circumstances, in any place of the world, should be subjected to this egregious act. This resolution contains a list of persons who we know are in especially vulnerable situations and are more likely to be targeted by these practices. This includes, inter alia, persons belonging to ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities, internally displaced persons, migrants, indigenous peoples, and those targeted because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. It is of the utmost importance to our countries that this listing be kept in the resolution in its entirety. Killings of individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is a well-documented human rights issue, including in reports of human rights treaty bodies and special procedures. Efforts to remove references to sexual orientation and gender identity from UN documents does not diminish their importance, nor dissuade us from advocating for the human rights of all individuals. Operative paragraph 8 focuses on the obligation of States to investigate all killings, including the killings of persons belonging to the specific groups that are listed. The paragraph does not ask any State to change their domestic laws or policies regarding the groups listed. It is focused instead on ensuring the effective protection of those specific groups of persons who are targeted for discriminatory reasons. We recognize Finland's efforts to address these concerns expressed by the OIC. The revised text demonstrates compromise while preserving the integrity of the paragraph, OP8B. This further reinforces our view that the proposed amendment tabled by the OIC should not be accepted. Deleting sexual orientation and gender identity from this listing would send a wrong and deeply dangerous message to all the groups in vulnerable situations who are mentioned in the text. that the General Assembly decided that one specific group no longer warrants protection against extrajudicial killings. We will therefore vote against this amendment, and we urge other delegations to do the same. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:37:19]:

Thank you, Australia. Uruguay, you have the floor.


Uruguay [2:37:25]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. On behalf of Uruguay, I would like to express our strong support to the draft resolution entitled "Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions", which we are pleased to co-sponsor. And we'd like to thank Finland for their excellent leading of the negotiations on behalf of the Nordic countries. We regret the introduction of an amendment to this resolution, which has already been rejected in previous years through a vote. The objective of this is clear: to eliminate the reference to sexual orientation and gender identity in the paragraph that urges states to investigate extrajudicial executions exhaustively and impartially. This resolution has a goal that should be supported by the entire international community: that all extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions should be investigated and all of the perpetrators should be held accountable. This is an obligation that should be complied with without any discrimination and which requires particular attention to be given to people who are particularly vulnerable or who are a target of violence for specific reasons, including those attacked as a result of their identity. We're not engaging in an ideological or terminological debate because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, the LGBTI community are particularly exposed and continue to face specific risks of violence, attacks, and assassinations throughout the world. Many of these crimes are totally invisible or insufficiently documented. inter alia, because of normative frameworks and practices that are discriminatory and that criminalize certain identities and that can contribute to justifying, tolerate, or perpetuating violence against these people. The high levels of impunity make it even more necessary to preserve fully a paragraph that just seeks to ensure effective, exhaustive, and impartial investigations of cases of extrajudicial executions. Mr. Chair, Uruguay also categorically rejects the amendments that aim to delete references to the ICC. As a State Party to the Rome Statute, Uruguay is fully committed to the Court, whose establishment was the result of more than 80 years of international work. The fact of not being part of a body is not a valid argument to delete reference to it. The ICC exists and States Parties to the Statute have obligations, and just mentioning the ICC does not oblige any State to join it. Hence, in line with our unwavering commitment to human rights and international justice, Uruguay will vote against the three amendments, and we encourage all States to do likewise.


GA · Chair [2:40:26]:

Thank you, Uruguay. We have the following States in our final tranche: Niger, Belarus, Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Niger, you have the floor.


Niger [2:40:40]:

Thank you, Chair. My delegation is taking the floor to explain its position before the amendment on L.53 presented by Egypt. Egypt, Niger condemns All extrajudicial summary arbitrary executions, anyone, everyone has right to be protected under the law. Any illicit execution should be diligently investigated in an impartial way and those accountable should be should those as possible should be held accountable. We regret, however, that the expression sexual orientation and gender identity come up again and again in the work of our multilateral bodies on various different topics, whereas its use can still divide member states. Our position is constant whatever the agenda item. We reserve the right to interpret these notions in the light of our national context, particularly social and structural realities, and to determine, in line with our legislation and in respect for our international obligations, the modalities of their potential application on our territory. Chair, in 2024, Niger co-sponsored an amendment on this, however, we have expressed our reservations regarding these two expressions, a position which remains unchanged. We regret that the revised version of this still has these references in paragraph 8b, and this was added at the end of the list, whereas a proposal to replace this with something saying any person at increased risks of execution was rejected. This wording would allow us to protect everyone and find the motive for every execution, even if the motive isn't reflected clearly in the text. For these reasons, we co-sponsored this amendment, we'll vote in favour of it, and we'll call on all delegations to do the same, to put a stop to any attempt for political weaponisation of our work on these issues. Thank you very much.


GA · Chair [2:42:39]:

I pass to Belarus.


Belarus [2:42:43]:

Colleagues, If, as the distinguished representative of Finland, the aim of these paragraphs really was only to fight extrajudicial summary and arbitrary executions and not promote controversial narratives not based on consensus, it wouldn't have been a problem, for example, to add a compromise footnote or use accepted terminology. Rather than this, the coordinators were opposed to this kind of proposal. Belarus does not support these kind of sly approaches and calls on delegations to vote in favour of the proposed amendments. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:43:22]:

Thank you, Belarus. Costa Rica to be followed by Nicaragua, finally. Costa Rica.


Costa Rica [2:43:29]:

Mr. Chairman, to delete the express reference to specific victims in the resolution and the reasons why they are attacked It means excluding a specific group from protecting their right to life. This is unjustified because any kind of summary, extrajudicial or arbitrary execution should be investigated, regardless of who is the victim or the reasons that led to the execution. This principle is critical to guarantee access to justice. Expressly identifying the circumstances behind the execution does not provide additional rights to any group, nor does it establish more categories. It is a simple principle that should make it possible to ensure that the investigation can proceed. Mr. Chair, Costa Rica is, has been, and will remain a staunch advocate of the right to life. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 3 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Article 6 recognizes the inherent right to life of all persons. This commitment is enshrined in our internal legal order. Articles 21 and 33 of our Constitution guarantee the right to life and equal treatment before the law. Our criminal code criminalizes in the relevant law extrajudicial executions or hate crimes. And that is why we will vote in favour of the resolution and against all of the amendments that have been presented. Protecting the right to life cannot be interpreted selectively, nor can be our obligation to investigate these kind of executions. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:45:37]:

Thank you, Costa Rica. And my final delegation seeking to intervene is Nicaragua. You have the floor.


Nicaragua [2:45:46]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nicaragua believes in impartial international justice without any kind of double standards. Nicaragua is not a State party to the Rome Statute, and nor are we a party, therefore, to the ICC. We do not recognize the jurisdiction of the Court. We believe that the ICC undermines the principles of sovereign equality between states and non-interference in the internal affairs of states, and it promotes double standards. We reaffirm our commitment to a fair, free, multipolar world in which we can engage in relations between states in harmony. to promote international law and the United Nations Charter. As a result of all of this, we dissociate from all references to the ICC, and we support the amendments that the Russian Federation has proposed. We would like this to be reflected in the minutes of this meeting. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:46:55]:

Thank you, Nicaragua. In the absence of any other delegation seeking the floor, we'll now take action on the amendments one by one. And let's turn first to amendment contained in document L-53. The committee will now commence the process of voting on that amendment. No representative can interrupt the voting except with a point of order on the actual process. Delegations are invited to indicate your voting intentions presently.


GA · Secretary [2:47:28]:

The Committee is now voting on the amendment to operative paragraph 8B of draft resolution L-37, revision one, as contained in document L-53. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are correctly reflected on the screen? The voting. Can you press the press your mic button, please?


GA · Chair [2:49:25]:

Can I just identify for all delegations that Italy has indicated to us that they have a problem with their machine, but that their vote is a no vote? Thank you, Secretary.


GA · Secretary [2:49:39]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the screen, taking into account the announcement just made by the Chair? The voting has been completed. Please lock the voting machine.


GA · Chair [2:50:29]:

Colleagues, the result of the vote is as follows: in favour 69, against 74, abstentions 24. The result is that the amendment to draft resolution L.37/Rev.1 contained in document L.53 is rejected. We turn next to the amendment contained in document L.65. The Committee will now commence the voting process on that amendment. In accordance with Rule 128, we will only take interventions on a point of order in relation to the process of voting. Delegations are invited to identify their vote presently.


GA · Secretary [2:51:31]:

The Committee is now voting on the amendment to Preambular paragraph 18 of draft resolution L/37, revision 1, as contained in document L/65. Due to the problem with the voting machine, the delegation of Italy has confirmed the delegation of Italy votes no, taking into account What has just been said, will all other delegations please confirm that their votes are correctly reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the voting machine.


GA · Chair [2:52:36]:

Thank you, Secretary. The result of the vote is as follows: in favour, 22; against, taking account of the advice just provided by the Secretary, against is 84; and abstentions are 48. That means that the amendment to draft resolution L/37/Rev.1 contained in document L/65 is rejected. We now turn to the amendment contained in document L/66. The Committee will now commence with the process of voting for L/66. I don't need to remind you of the procedural rules again. Delegations are invited to indicate their vote.


GA · Secretary [2:53:32]:

The Committee is now voting on the amendment to delete operative paragraph 16 of draft resolution L/37, revision 1, as contained in document L/66. The delegation of Italy votes no on the amendment. Taking this into account, will all other delegations confirm that their votes are correctly reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the voting machine.


GA · Chair [2:54:33]:

The result of the vote is as follows: in favour 22, against 81, taking account of the vote that was otherwise not recorded, and abstentions 47. The amendment to draft resolution L37/Rev1 contained in document L66 is rejected. I'm now asked to invite Any delegation which wishes to make an explanation of vote or a general statement after the vote on the amendments, to indicate the desire to do so now. I have no delegation seeking to take the floor. One moment. Therefore, since the amendments contained in documents L53, L65 and L66 have been rejected, we will proceed to take a decision on draft resolution L37/Rev.1 as a whole. I would note that a recorded vote has been requested. On the resolution, which, as you know, is L.37/Rev.1, entitled “Extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions”, does any delegation wish to make a general statement or an explanation of vote before the vote in connection with draft resolution L.37? I have a number of delegations indicating a wish to make a statement. The current list is Sweden, Chile, Netherlands, Russian Federation, and Egypt. Sweden, you have the floor.


Sweden · Nordic Group [2:56:26]:

Thank you, Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of the five Nordic countries. Chair, two years ago when we adopted this resolution, we agreed that OHCHR should develop a practical tool on how to better investigate extrajudicial killings of women and girls. I'm happy to report that this work is now nearly complete and will soon be launched. We bring this up to illustrate that this is a resolution that matters. It's a text that delivers practical results into the hands of the people that work to protect human rights on the ground, for crime scene investigators, medical examiners, forensic scientists, first responders, prosecutors, and other parts of the justice and accountability chain. Two key elements are at the core of the text: the right to life and the fight against impunity. Everyone should be able to live freely without the fear of being illegally executed on any grounds. By adopting this resolution, this Committee will underline the global community's commitment to fight this abhorrent practice in all its forms, wherever and whenever it takes place. Unfortunately, the resolution faced an amendment today on the paragraph listing persons belonging to groups vulnerable to extrajudicial executions. We are glad that the amendment didn't pass. Retaining the full listing in this paragraph is essential. It mirrors reality on the ground and underlines the responsibility that we, as the international community, have when it comes to preventing and investigating unlawful deaths. It would send a dangerous signal to persons belonging to the vulnerable groups mentioned in the resolution if this committee decided that they no longer deserve attention despite their lives being under threat. We hope that those delegations that voted in favour of the amendment can still join us in voting yes to the resolution as a whole. Chair, we also regret Russia's decision to try to amend two additional paragraphs and remove long-standing references to the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court. The reason why Russia wants to remove ICC should be plain to see to everyone, and I will not go into it further. This is a cornerstone of rules-based international order and a vital institution in the global fight against impunity. As others have said before us, the resolution does not create any new obligations for the states that have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute. Finally, to those in civil society watching these results today of the vote with despair, we have this to say: we will table this resolution in two years again, and the Nordic countries will not stop defending the right to life. Chair and colleagues, we will vote yes on the resolution, and we strongly urge others to do the same. Thank you very much.


GA · Chair [2:58:50]:

Thank you, Sweden. Chile, you have the floor.


Chile [2:58:54]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chile would like to thank Finland for presenting this resolution on behalf of the Nordic countries and expresses its full support to the draft resolution. In its entirety, as it's been presented, this resolution reaffirms a fundamental obligation that all states have to protect the right to life, to swiftly, exhaustively, impartially investigate any death. to guarantee accountability and to ensure accountability and redress for victims and their families. For Chile, these commitments are not just declarations of principle; they are concrete obligations whose implementation is critical to combat impunity and to guarantee non-repetition in line with standards of the relevant Protocol. Without any These are principles that need to be recognized without any kind of discrimination. Chile reaffirms its commitment to the right to life, to the rule of law, and to human dignity. For these reasons, Chile will vote in favor of this resolution. Thank you.


GA · Chair [3:00:04]:

Thank you, Chile. Kingdom of the Netherlands.


Netherlands (Kingdom of the) [3:00:08]:

Thank you, Chair. The resolution on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions has traditionally enjoyed broad cross-regional support in this Committee. We commend the penholders for their inclusive and transparent approach and their continued leadership. Our collective responsibility is to ensure that everyone is protected, without discrimination, from extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. On this fundamental principle, this Committee must speak with one voice: we shall not kill. Amendments that undermine this principle undermine the very purpose of this resolution. We particularly welcome the recognition that certain groups face heightened risk, including people targeted on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity. We are deeply concerned by continued attempts to weaken or remove this reference. The reality is undeniable: people around the world are killed simply because of who they love. Acknowledging this is not a matter of preference; it is a matter of ensuring that the universal right to life is protected for everyone, without discrimination. Deleting or diluting this reference would undermine this resolution and send a dangerous signal that these killings fall outside the scope of concern of this Committee. We commend all delegations that stood firm today and ensured this amendment did not pass, and orange will always be a part of that rainbow. Accountability is equally essential. Extrajudicial executions must not go unpunished. Where States are unwilling or unable to prosecute perpetrators, the International Criminal Court has a critical role to play. The Kingdom of the Netherlands remains a staunch supporter of the Court and will continue to oppose all efforts to remove its references from UN resolutions. The Kingdom of the Netherlands will vote today in favour of this resolution, and we urge all delegations to join us in defending agreed language that reflects the realities faced by those most at risk. I thank you.


GA · Chair [3:01:59]:

I thank the Kingdom of the Netherlands. I pass to the Russian Federation, to be followed by Egypt, and the last on my list is Colombia. Russian Federation, you have the floor.


Russian Federation [3:02:09]:

Thank you, Chair. Year in, year out, the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary execution does not take into account many comments, both from Russia and also from other delegations. In this connection, the Russian Federation, alongside a group of countries, called for a vote on draft L.37/1. In our national capacity, we intend on abstaining on it. Now, national capacity also, we'd like to note the following. Amongst the provisions of concern to us include the creation of an artificial hierarchy as part of civil society and giving some categories a particular status based and particular rights based on their professional activities, and also referring to the confrontational neoliberal concepts in the draft. In our view on the provisions on so-called ICC and its Rome Statute, well, we have mentioned this several times today already. The amount of issues accrued over the years with the text do not allow us to support its adoption by consensus, despite Russia's conviction that this is a very important topic. Thank you.


GA · Chair [3:03:23]:

Thank you, Russian Federation. I pass to Egypt.


Egypt [3:03:28]:

Thank you, Chairperson. Egypt takes the floor to explain its vote before the vote on draft resolution entitled "Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions." While reiterating Egypt's unequivocal condemnation of all forms of unlawful killings, we deeply regret that owing to the persistently problematic content of this text over the past decade and the failure to respond to the concerns of a broad and diverse range of Member States, Egypt once again supported the request for the vote and will abstain on this draft resolution. This represents yet another missed opportunity for the main sponsors to rally the international community around an indisputably critical issue concerning the sacred right to life. The voting chart on the amendment and the limited geographic diversity in the list of co-sponsorship are a case in point. Egypt will abstain for the following reasons. Egypt has consistently objected and will continue to object to the imposition of the term sexual orientation and gender identity, in disregard of the legal, cultural, and religious characteristics of Member States, and in a manner that goes beyond the letter and the spirit of the respective obligations under international law. As demonstrated by the voting results on the amendment, 69 Member States supported the amendment to operative paragraph 8B, while only 73 opposed it. This clearly attests to the continued and deepening divergence of views on this matter and its adverse impact on what should have been unanimous support for the protection of the right to life. While the text has failed to evolve to reflect transformative developments, such as the evidence-based impact of lethal autonomous weapons and military applications of artificial intelligence on the right to life or extrajudicial killing in the context of situations of extended organized crime and armed violence, its sponsors have once again chosen to forego consensus for the same reason that has divided the Member States for over a decade. Second, we register our reservation concerning the language of operative paragraph 6. We reject any attempt to link extrajudicial killings directly or indirectly to the implementation of death penalty, or to undermine the sovereign right of states with respect to their national legal systems and penal codes in accordance with their obligations under international human rights law. Third, Egypt recognizes only two sexes: male and female. Our interpretation of any references to gender in the text is based on this understanding and is in accordance with Annex IV to the report of the Beijing Conference. Fourth and finally, Egypt is not a State party to the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court. We do not associate ourselves with any implications arising from language in this text referring to the Court. I thank you, Chair.


GA · Chair [3:06:11]:

Thank you, Egypt. I pass to the final delegation seeking to intervene at the present moment. It's Colombia.


Colombia [3:06:20]:

Thank you, Chairman. Colombia would like to make a general statement on the resolutions. considered by the Third Committee, including those adopted by consensus and in those in which we are co-sponsor, we understand that references to gender do not presuppose autonomous new categories being established and do not undermine the obligations that States have already signed up to. we will interpret the references to gender in the resolution in line with the principles of equality between women and men, in line with the Colombian political constitution and the international human rights treaties that we have ratified. Thank you.


GA · Chair [3:07:07]:

Thank you, Colombia. The Committee will now commence the process of voting on draft resolution L.37/1. I remind you of the rules of procedure. Delegations are invited to indicate their vote right now.


GA · Secretary [3:07:27]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L.37, revision 1, entitled “Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions”. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are correctly reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the voting machine.


GA · Chair [3:08:11]:

The result of the vote is as follows: in favour 131, against 0, abstentions 47. Accordingly, draft resolution A/C3/81/L.37/Rev.1 is adopted. Does any delegation wish to make an explanation of vote or a general statement after the vote? I have a number. Let me read out the first tranche: Cuba, Indonesia, Namibia, India, Senegal and Yemen. Cuba, you have the floor.


Cuba [3:08:49]:

Thank you, Chairman. We’d like to thank Finland for presenting the resolution on behalf of the Nordic countries, whose noble aim we share. Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions are unacceptable. No state should be carrying out these kind of executions. and no one should be operating outside the law. The international community should not be silent in the face of these events. That is why we voted in favor of REV 1, in spite of the fact we have some concerns about part of its content. Cuba does not support the references to the ICC. We are not a party to that or to the ICC, and we don't recognize the court's jurisdiction. That is why we voted in favor of the amendments 65 and 66, we don't share the reference to the so-called responsibility to protect either. We have serious substantive concerns about that responsibility, and we think it can be manipulated to justify violations on states' sovereignty and territorial integrity, particularly countries to the south. The relevant resolution, in line with the relevant resolution of the General Assembly, we reserve our position on some of these matters. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions is a matter that some States have not supported. We believe that protecting people from these acts is a matter that is exclusively up to the authorities of each state on the basis of national legislation and the relevant international treaties to which they have subscribed. We disassociate from PP18. We do not believe that we are bound by the language there. We are committed to support the international community's efforts to promote and protect the rights of all people, including the elimination of these kind of executions. Thank you.


GA · Chair [3:11:20]:

Thank you, Cuba. I pass to Indonesia.


Indonesia [3:11:24]:

Thank you, Chair.

Indonesia aligns itself with the statement delivered by Egypt on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and would like to add the following. Indonesia reaffirms its long-standing commitment to take necessary measures to prevent, combat, and eliminate extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions. Nevertheless, Indonesia places a reservation to the report A/HRC/62/37 of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions to the Human Rights Council in OP 6. We reject the report's legal assessments that the death penalty per se constitutes torture, which risks conflating distinct legal norms under international law. We further underscore that Indonesia's legal frameworks provide rigorous safeguards and restrictions to uphold due process and fair trial, particularly in the death penalty cases. Since early this year, apart from observing a de facto moratorium on execution in the past 10 years, Indonesia effectively reclassifies the death penalty as a special last resort punishment under our newly amended criminal code. These safeguards and restrictions guarantee the right to seek pardon and commutation of sentence for convicted persons. I thank you, Chair.


GA · Chair [3:12:44]:

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


Namibia [3:12:49]:

Thank you, Chair. Namibia remains deeply committed to upholding universal human rights and fundamental freedoms. particularly the right to life, as enshrined in our Constitution.

For that reason, Namibia voted in favour of the resolution. However, my delegation disassociates itself from the concept of sexual

orientation and gender identity, as this is not in line with our Constitution, national laws, cultural norms, and values.

Furthermore, the concept lacks

an intergovernmentally agreed definition, leaving it open to interpretations that reduce a human person to subjective characteristics and categories.

In addition, the concept falls outside the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Namibia subscribed.

I thank you.


GA · Chair [3:13:40]:

Thank you, Namibia. I pass to India.


India [3:13:45]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions are unlawful and a clear violation of human rights. They deeply affect the families of victims and violate the most fundamental human right, the right to life. India therefore supported the adoption of the resolution that calls upon states to eradicate instances of such grave human rights violations. However, my delegation would like to clarify our position on OP6 of the resolution. It refers to the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions presented to the Human Rights Council at its 62nd session. and calls on states to take into account the recommendations contained therein. We strongly disagree with the assertion conveyed in the report of the Special Rapporteur, and thereby, through the resolution, the death penalty inherently constitutes torture or ill-treatment. There is no international consensus against capital punishment, and Article 6 of the ICCPR permits its use with restrictions. Capital punishment is meted out after rigorous and due legal process. It is therefore a travesty to term it state-inflicted death. To discuss this topic under a resolution or a report on extrajudicial and arbitrary execution is therefore disingenuous and mischievous, intended to portray personal ideological preferences as settled international law. In India, death penalty is a statutory provision exercised exclusively in the rarest of rare cases. Our legal framework guarantees multi-tier procedural safeguards, including the presumption of innocence, mandatory confirmation of death sentences by a higher court, and extensive mitigating considerations. In view of the above, my delegation is constrained to disassociate from OP 6 of the resolution. Thank you.


GA · Chair [3:15:24]:

Thank you, India. We have two speakers before we will break for lunch. I have Senegal followed by Yemen, and then we will break to resume at three. Senegal, you have the floor.


Senegal [3:15:43]:

Thank you, Chair. Senegal reaffirms its full commitment to the objectives and spirit of this resolution, which is a key tool in the fight against extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions. Our support to these principles shows our constant commitment to the right to life, the protection of human dignity, the fight against impunity and the respect for international obligations on human rights. However, My delegation regrets the inclusion of references to sexual orientation and gender identity, notions that are, that do not enjoy consensus between Member States. Senegal rejects these references, which are not internationally agreed, and should not be integrated into UN texts. In this connection, Senegal abstained on the vote on this resolution and dissociates itself from all interpretation of the resolution that could be understood as implying its support of these ideas. My delegation therefore reiterates the fundamental importance of respect for agreed language within the UN, which is the bedrock of our international commitments. We call for the integrity of the intergovernmental negotiation process to be preserved, to avoid any attempt of including concepts or wording that do not enjoy full agreement by member states. We remain committed to the promotion and protection of human rights, respecting the UN Charter, international law, and commitments that states have freely entered into. Thank you.


GA · Chair [3:17:43]:

Thank you, Senegal. Our final speaker for this morning is Yemen. You have the floor.


Yemen [3:17:49]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to thank Finland for facilitating the draft resolution on behalf of the Balkan States. The Republic of Yemen supports the objective of putting an end to extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions all around the world, as these are grave violations to the right to life and the principles of human rights. However, my country expresses its regret that some concepts were included in this draft resolution. We disassociate ourselves from these terms that did not receive consensus among Member States. We believe that adding these terms does not contribute to achieving the main objective of this resolution, which is to prevent extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary execution. The drafting should focus on the objective of the resolution and should not include terms that do not receive consensus among member states in order to protect the right to life and prevent any extrajudicial executions.

It is important to

respect the specificities of member states while making every effort to prevent extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions and call those perpetrators into account, I think.


GA · Chair [3:19:19]:

Thank you, Yemin. We have heard the last speaker for this meeting this morning. We will reconvene at 3 PM to hear the remaining speakers after the vote on L-37/Rev1 and consider draft resolution L-43 and the amendments L-50 to it. Thank you so much. We are adjourned.