48th Human Rights Council Reports

Decisions and Conclusions on the 48th Human Rights Council


All sources used to draft the reports on the 41st meeting can be found here Reports drafted by Amine Meharzi on October 7th, 2021.

Composition of the HRC

Vote result: DRAFT RESOLUTION A/HRC/48/L.28: "Reports of the Advisory Committee" ADOPTED

Item2: Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.11: "Situation of human rights in Yemen" – Netherlands, Belgium. Canada, Luxembourg, Ireland

General comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.11

Austria on behalf of the European Union (EU): 250'000 people lost their lives and 500'000 have been internally displaced since the beginning of the conflict in Yemen. The EU regrets that no peace is in sight. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) violations as well as war crimes continue in Yemen. The EU strongly supports the resolution and wants to renew the mandate of the Group of Eminent Experts (GEE).

Germany aligns itself with the EU and is deeply concerned by the humanitarian disaster in Yemen. The Yemeni people suffer from massive malnutrition and civilian infrastructures are targeted by all conflictual parties. COVID-19 has had an even greater negative impact on Yemen. Germany stresses the need of an impartial investigation of all IHL and human rights violations. The country calls for the renewal and extension of the previous mandate so that it can act in terms of accountability.

Yemen complains that there are two projects on Yemen. It rejects all allegations and does not accept the GEEs for being unprofessional and biased. Their reports exacerbate the crisis as they encourage rebel groups to continue with their hostilities. Yemen criticizes the Human Rights Council (HRC) for harming unity and solidarity of the international community through its intentions. Finally, the country rejects this draft resolution as A/HRC/48/L.6 is enough to tackle the Yemeni issue.

Explanation of vote on A/HRC/48/L.11

Bahrain believes that two draft resolutions on Yemen are wrong as it creates polarization and politicization within the Council. L.11 is controversial, counterproductive and furthers the crisis. Bahrain states that insisting on this draft resolution is a violation of Yemen's sovereignty. Bahrain will vote against the resolution.

Brazil appreciates the work of the Special Envoy in Yemen. Brazil believes in the efficiency of both resolutions on Yemen and will vote for the renewal of the GEE's mandate.

Uruguay votes in favor of the draft resolution on Yemen as they want the renewal of the GEE's mandate. For Uruguay it is the best choice to improve the humanitarian situation, create solidarity and achieve a cease fire and peaceful settlement in Yemen.

Mexico votes in favor of the resolution as it is concerned for the humanitarian situation and the regional security. The UN representatives in Yemen will help improve the situation.

The United Kingdom (UK) believes that the UN representatives play a crucial role in reporting of humanitarian violations. It calls all members of the Council to support the resolution.

China states that the draft resolution violates the UN principle on internal affairs as it excerts pressure on the Yemeni government. The draft resolution leads to confrontations and hinders humanitarian efforts in Yemen.

Denmark supports the GEE and so will vote in favor of the draft resolution. Violators have to be punished by an independent, impartial mechanism.

Japan condemns the attacks perpetrated by the Houthis against Saudi Arabia and calls conflicting parties to restraint from violence. Japan considers the GEE reports as misleading and unconstructive. Therefore, it will abstain from voting.


YES: 18

ABS: 7

NO: 21

General comments after vote on A/HRC/48/L.11

Indonesia believes that the Council should first create an inclusive environment that encourages states to fulfil humanitarian efforts. Indonesia observed that the Council has been producing non-productive resolutions. Even though Bolivia supports the Yemeni people, the country voted against the resolution for previously stated reasons.

Netherlands states that the Council has failed the Yemeni citizens. The country regrets that the experts will have to leave Yemen, despite having fulfilled a mandate beyond expectations. The Netherlands demands the international community to not abandon the Yemeni people.

Austria is "profoundly disappointed" as the Council failed to respond to the people's demands. It believes that the experts played vital role in providing recommendations, gathering information, reporting violations and fulfilling its mandate. Without its work there will be setbacks in the humanitarian situation of Yemen. The Council should continue focus on Yemen. Austria reiterates that the EU will continue to demand accountability.

The Republic of Korea appreciates Saudi Arabian efforts of states, especially Saudi Arabia, to deescalate tensions within Yemen. The Republic urges all parties to support the mediation efforts and engage in the political process toward an inclusive solution.

Item2: Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.24/Rev.1: "Situation of human rights in Afghanistan" – European Union (Slovenia)

Amendment L.43 on A/HRC/48/L.24/Rev.1 WITHDRAWN

Amendment L.44 on A/HRC/48/L.24/Rev.1

Explanation of vote on Amendment L.44

Austria on behalf of the EU states that the amendment address issues that are irrelevant for the Council and that lie in the competence of the IMF. Therefore, the EU will vote no.


YES: 6

ABST: 18

NO: 21

Amendment L.45 on A/HRC/48/L.24/Rev.1

Explanation of vote on Amendment L.45

Austria on behalf of the EU states that different impartial organizations such as UNAMA provided solid evidence on human rights violation within Afghanistan. Violence against media workers, journalists or civilians is recorded. The EU will vote no.

Vote result - Amendment rejected

YES: 6

ABST: 16

NO: 23

Amendment L.46 on A/HRC/48/L.24/Rev.1

Amendment L.46 explanations

Austria on behalf of EU states that the amendment seeks to change and weaken the draft resolution. L.46 limits the resolution, changes the nature of the mandate, and goes against the demands of the High Commissioner.

Vote result -Amendment rejected

YES: 6

ABST: 17

NO: 23

Amendment L.47 on A/HRC/48/L.24/Rev.1

Amendment L.47 explanations:

Austria on behalf of EU stresses the importance of humanitarian support without discrimination. L.47 undermines this effort.


YES: 6

ABST: 17

NO: 23

Amendment L.48 on A/HRC/48/L.24/Rev.1

Amendment L.48 explanations

Austria on behalf of EU: Amendment L.48 demands the suppression of the High Commissioner's updates on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. The EU states the importance of the High Commissioner's updates and rejects therefore this demand.


YES: 5

ABST: 17

NO: 23

General comments on amendments:

Russian Federation welcomes the amendments. The Russian Federation criticizes the current approach of the Council as it views Afghanistan through an impartial and politicized lens. The amendments of China can correct the situation.

Afghanistan reminds of the numerous human rights violations of the Taliban such as suppression of freedom of press and assembly, ethnic cleansing, discrimination based on religion and ethnicity, gender-based violence, forced disappearances or arbitrary detention. The international community should support the Afghan people and the ones bringing together the various ethnicities of Afghanistan. Therefore, Afghanistan believes that the Council should support and vote in favor of the resolution.

Explanation of vote on A/HRC/48/L.24/Rev.1

China is concerned about the content of the resolution and regrets that its amendments have been rejected. China asks the international community respect UN principles such as sovereignty, interior integrity, and independence, and the political path chosen by the Afghani people. China stresses the urgency of supporting Afghanistan with humanitarian help in order to overcome COVID-19 difficulties. China warns to not use the issue in order to put state interests forward because it worsens the humanitarian situation in the country. Human rights violators have to be held accountable in order to restore justice again.

Namibia states the violence perpetrated by the Taliban against women and girls. Namibia supports the resolution as it can help solving the humanitarian issues through further monitoring.

Brazil believes that the draft resolution can help the Afghani people in their struggle for the freedom of assembly, press, religion and expression. The Council should emphasis the issue on Afghan refugees and asylum seekers. The council can play role in overcoming the situation in Afghanistan with dialogue and cooperation.

Pakistan on behalf of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) supports Afghanistan. It notes the human rights and IHL violations committed by conflicting parties. The OIC believes that the Council should communicate a unified stance on Afghanistan. The OIC criticizes the draft text for shifting away from issues on accountability. international assistance is important where all people of Afghanistan can address their needs.

Pakistan on its behalf believes that the international community should prioritize a strategy that gives primacy to the Afghan people's needs and demands. Pakistan believes that the initiative of the EU contributed to divisions within the Council. The country criticizes the Council for its double standards. Pakistan considered the draft resolution as:

  • counterproductive and ill-minded as it does not assess the humanitarian situation after the prolonged war.

  • it fails to confront past humanitarian abuses committed by different actors and does not propose solutions to the problem

  • as the designated special rapporteur is duplicating the work and complicates the situation.

  • As the resolution is not aligned with the overall approach of the UN and regional organizations.

Pakistan demands an approach that assesses regional interests and that focuses on accountability. Pakistan will vote against the draft resolution.

Argentina notes the serious human rights violations against women and girls. Argentina stresses the difficulties that refugees, IDPs (Internal displaced peoples), elderly people, LGBTQ+ and other vulnerable groups face. Argentina calls for drastic measures that stop the crisis and improve the humanitarian situation. The country believes that the draft resolution is a key step to improve the situation.

Venezuela rejects the resolution. The country accuses the sponsors for having drafted this resolution only after the retreat of the USA from Afghanistan. The USA had wrecked the social stability in Afghanistan. Venezuela calls the council to protect the human rights without politicizing the issue, following interests, and engaging in double standards.

Russian Federation regrets that most of its proposals have not been taking in the resolution. Russian Federation criticizes the resolution for being too hasty and biased since it does not blame past actions. The resolution does not assess the real reasons behind the humanitarian disaster and past attacks on civilians. The Russian Federation calls for a balanced and neutral approach.

Vote result – DRAFT RESOLUTION A/HRC/48/L.24/Rev.1 ADOPTED

YES: 28

ABST: 14

NO 5

General comments after vote on A/HRC/48/L.24/Rev.1

Bolivia regrets that the draft resolution focused only on the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan. It should also encompass all underlining factors that involve foreign military interventions.

Soudan regrets the deterioration of human rights in Afghanistan especially for girls and women. Therefore, it supported the draft resolution and rejected all amendments.

Item3: Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.4/Rev.1: Equal participation in political and public affairs - Czech Republic, Botswana, Indonesia, Netherlands, Peru

General comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.4/Rev.1

Austria notes that the COVID-19 pandemic had negative effect on holding elections and having equal participation in the country. Austria welcomes the resolution as it contains new important elements such as the impact of emergency measures, digital devices and the recognition of broad space participation. The draft text recognizes that minorities, women and girls are the most marginalized and the importance of youth participation in democracies.

Argentina highlights the importance of transparent elections and the risk of coercion in elections. Argentina supports the human rights of women an the need of inclusive participation in all types of votes. Therefore, Argentina urges all states to support this draft resolution.

Armenia stresses the importance to focus on women participation in order to foster social participation. Armenia notes that its parliament counts 40% of women and that the women participation in other sector grows. Women must be integrated in all sectors such as on peacebuilding. Armenia highlights the importance of the freedom of assembly and expression especially during the pandemic. Armenia looks forward for intersectional workshops.

The UK remains committed to the importance of equal participation in public affairs especially during the pandemic. The UK notes the importance of youth participation.

Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.4/Rev.1 ADOPTED without a vote

Item3: Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.5/Rev.1: Human rights of older persons – Argentina, Brazil, and Slovenia

General comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.5/Rev.1

Uruguay welcomes the draft resolution. The resolution can help older persons that have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The council can restore its commitment to older persons if it adopts the draft resolution by consensus.

Mexico thanks the sponsors and stresses the importance to fight all forms of discrimination. Mexico highlights the need for a friendly environment for older persons.

Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.5/Rev.1 ADOPTED without a vote

Item3: Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.9/Rev.1: "Right to privacy in the digital age" – Germany, Austria, Mexico, Brazil, Liechtenstein, Mexico

General comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.9/Rev.1

India regards the right of privacy as a fundamental right. The Indian parliament has adopted a bill based on the recommendations. India agrees that future devices should respect human rights. Therefore, it welcomes the draft resolution.

Argentina notes that the right of privacy is a gate keeper right that enables the right of assembly and expression. Future technologies based on data need monitoring and risk assessment evaluation.

Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.9/Rev.1 ADOPTED without a vote

Item3: Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.12: "The use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination" – Cuba

General comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.12

Armenia states the negative impact of mercenaries and private military action. Mercenaries cause regional instability and violate human rights such as the right of self-determination of people. Armenia notes that child soldier recruitment has to be addressed as well. Therefore, Armenia believes that the Council has to address these mercenarism and its constant negative impact on human rights.

Explanation of vote on A/HRC/48/L.12

Austria on behalf of EU reiterates that the draft resolution lacks in conceptual clarity regarding the role and action of mercenaries. The EU notes the duplication of work and efforts since there exist already working groups focusing on the issue such as the Montreux document. The draft resolution falls beyond the mandate of this Council and leaves long-lasting issues unresolved. EU states its rejection of the draft resolution and calls for a vote.

The UK regrets the conceptual clarity. The confusion between of PMSCs (Private Military and Security Compagnies) and mercenaries undermines the effort of the working group. The UK laments that its proposition have not been integrated within the draft proposal. The UK hopes that Cuba will recognize the concerns of the UK in future negotiations. The UK will vote against the resolution.


YES: 29


NO: 14


All sources used to draft the reports on the 42nd meeting can be found here, here, here and here
Report drafted by Amine Meharzi on October 8th, 2021.

Composition of the HRC

Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.7/Rev 1: "Child, early and forced marriage in times of crisis, including the COVID-19 pandemic" – Netherlands, Argentina, Canada, Honduras, Italy, Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Poland, Thailand, Uruguay, United Kingdom and Switzerland

General Comments on Resolution and the amendments:

Austria on behalf of the European Union (EU): Child marriage is a human rights violations that affects women and girls globally. More than a 100 million girls will become child brides in the next 10 years. Girls and young women are more vulnerable of violence, abuse and discrimination than adult women. Early and forced marriage makes the girls and young women more vulnerable. The COVID-19 had a negative impact on the rights of education of girls. The efforts of made since the adoption of the SDGs in 2030 had insufficient impact regarding child. The EU believes that the resolution notes the negative impact of the crisis and ensures girls and young women the access to sexual and health education. The EU supports the resolution.

Namibia states that the many points of the resolution are mentioned in different international mechanisms. The right of reproduction is very important. Namibia will vote in favor of the resolution and reject all amendments

Poland aligns itself with the EU. The country believes that child marriages disproportionately affect young women and girls. Child brides are often abused and generally victim of different forms of violence. Some progresses were made regarding the issue such as averting 25 million girls from child marriage. Still, 100 million girls might become child brides during the next decade. Poland stresses the importance of education and the vulnerability of girls with disabilities since they have bigger risks of becoming child brides.

The Republic of Korea states that serious violations on the human rights of girls and young women have been made during the pandemic. 10 to 30 million additional cases of forced child marriages might come in future which undermines the goals of the SDGs. The Republic stresses the importance of the following practices in addressing the issue: Quality and education, economic empowerment of women and girls and gender-responsive accountability. The Republic supports the resolution.

Argentina states that forced marriage is growing during times of crises. Girls and young women are exposed to interrelated forms of discrimination throughout their lives such as domestic violence, intimate partner violence, marital abuses, psychological abuse, structural abuse, institutional discrimination, stereotypes and violation of the women's body integrity. These main issues must be eradicated. Each person has the right to control his body, make decision based on free consent and the right to sexual education. The structural causes of the problem must be tackled.

Fiji Islands states that the Council must strive collectively in order to raise awareness of the women and child rights against forced marriage. The voices of the girls and young women must be addressed especially now during the pandemic.

Libya states that the prohibition of child marriage in its own country. Even though the country supports many points of the resolution, Libya does not recognize the paragraphs violating diversity and social-religious components of countries. Libya believes that the issue needs an unified approach recognizing the collective will of all countries. Libya will join in consensus but disassociate with some paragraphs of the current resolution.

Soudan states its specific measures taken to put an end to the abuse of women's and girls' rights. The country reaffirms the importance of strengthening the family as a unite.

Mauritania reaffirms its firm commitment to protect the rights of all citizens including those of children. The country states that the fight against child marriage is in the heart of the country. The wording used in the resolution should be in accordance with the Beijing plan of action. Every country should be free in the implementation in order to respect domestic judicial systems socio-cultural and religious aspects of countries. Certain notions remain problematic for the country.

Amendment L.31 on A/HRC/48/L.7/Rev 1 – Egypt

Explanation of vote on L.31

Mexico states that the amendment undermines important points of the resolution. The change in wording will prevent the tackling of the root causes, limit the scope of the resolution and contradict the Beijing Plan of Action. Mexico rejects the proposals on domestic violence and intimate partner violence. According to the World health Organization (WHO), intimate violence is the most common violence on women. It is characterized by sexual, physical and emotional violence and abuse by the intimate partner on the other.

Italy rejects the amendment since it seeks to modify the language of the draft resolution and weakens the focus of the fundamental aspects of the issue. The integration of the amendment will derogate different documents and regional agreements.

Denmark rejects the amendment since it undermines the main purpose of the resolution and efforts since 1994. Girls and young women have the right to choose their spouse, right to health and education. Denmark states that the council reaffirmed the language that the amendments try to remove. Intimate partner violence is the most common violence that young women and girls face.


YES: 15


NO: 23

Amendment L.61 on A/HRC/48/L.7/Rev 1 - Russian Federation

Explanation of vote on L.61

Austria rejects the amendment since it aims to rewrite the key paragraphs such as the freedom to choose the spouse. Perpetrators of Child, early and forced marriage (CEFM) are mostly legal guardians and parents. Leaving them the full responsibility of the issue is concerning. Evidence proves that comprehensive sexual education plays a significant role in ending child and forced marriage. Making this education dependent on parents and guardians can be detrimental to efforts to find a solution.

Germany rejects the amendments for the same reasons as Austria. The protection and respect of girls' and young women's rights is important to eliminate CEFM. Legal guardians and parents are mostly the perpetrators of CEFM. The amendments violate the resolution and neglect commitments made by states and during other conferences.

The United Kingdom (UK) reject the amendment. Access to the sexual and health education and the respect of the girls' dignity can have an impact on CEFM. This resolution calls for empowerment and the protection of women's rights especially during crises. Legal guardians and parents are fully involved in child marriages. Giving them the full responsibility is dangerous as it will remove the girls' and young women's autonomy.

Uruguay rejects the amendment for the same reasons as Austria and Germany. The amendment on the preamble paragraph will have a negative impact on the right to engage in marriage with free and full consent and the girls' autonomy.

Poland affirms that all children have the right to be heard. The amendment will delete the possibility of this right as well as the access to direct financial services to girls and young women. Possible marginalization of girls will be the direct consequence. Poland will vote against the amendment.


YES: 12


NO: 23

Amendment L.62 on A/HRC/48/L.7/Rev 1 - Russian Federation

Explanation of vote on L.62

Argentina rejects the amendment. The suggested wording will change the resolution and limit the scope of various international conferences and undermine regional agreements on intergovernmental level.

Czech Republic rejects the amendment as the new formulation would change the agreed language of the Council and contradict the language of the SDGs.


YES: 14


NO: 21

Explanation of vote before the vote on Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.7/Rev1

The Russian Federation states the priority of the rights, development life choices of young women and girls. However, it is dangerous to put young women and girls on equal footing with adults in terms of free movement and action. Russia does not agree on the reference on intimate partners. The country regrets that the text does not include references to the General Assembly in the context of the outcome document of the Beijing Declaration and its Programme of Action. Therefore, the draft is not accepted by the Russian federation.

Bahrein regrets that the group of sponsors have not considered the proposals made on the resolution such as amendment L.31. The specifities of each country should be taken into consideration.

Senegal states its efforts made on helping vulnerable people. It will align itself with the consensus but will distance itself from PP3, 15, 16, 17 and OP1, 3, 6 and 7.

Pakistan condemns CEFM and tries to ensure a safe environment for women. However, certain elements of the resolution disregard the religious and social-cultural diversity of countries. Pakistan states that various countries do not agree on the language on certain concepts such as the intimate partner violence or the right of sexual health. Pakistan demands that the resolution represents the will of all. Pakistan will join the consensus but distance itself from certain points of the resolution.

Bangladesh states that CEFM is a harmful practice that affects women and girls disproportionally. The resolution gives certain concerns to Pakistan:

  • Boys and girls, due to their age, cannot exercise their rights on equal footing with women and men.

  • Girls' body autonomy and access to sexual health will create new obligations which go beyond the mandate of the Human Rights Council (HRC).

  • The resolution does not recognize the role of legal guardians and parents in their guidance in education.

Bangladesh rejects as well the sexual and reproductive right and the concept of intimate partner violence. Therefore, the country will distance itself from certain paragraphs.

Indonesia supports the main intentions of the resolution. The country states, however, the importance of the family in education and decision-making. The resolution does not represent the context of different states harming its attempt to become consensual.

Eritrea supports the amendments. It disagrees with the intimate partner violence concept. Even though they oppose the language, they will still support the resolution as a whole.

Soudan stresses the danger of the CEFM since it is a blatant violation of human rights. The country dissociate itself from the paragraphs that include various terminologies such as physical and psychological exploitation and intimate partner violence.

France withdraws its co-sponsorship. The country states that forced marriage is a disguised form of slavery as it deprives people of their rights. Women should be allowed to construct the post-COVID era. The Council should speak from one voice and send a positive message to future girls and boys married by force.


Draft resolution A/HRC/48/L.8 "Negative impact of the legacies of colonialism on the enjoyment of human rights" -China

General comments on Resolution and amendments:

Russian Federation welcomes the resolution as the contemporary world still suffers from the legacy of colonialism. States under foreign rule are deprived of their own resources, interests, and rights.

Bolivia states that all states should eradicate the legacy of colonialism. Bolivia fights since 2006 the legacy of colonialism, racism and supports indigenous people as they were deeply affected by colonialism. It supports the draft resolution.

Eritrea states that colonialism has not fully been eradicated. The phenomenon still impacts the human rights globally. The Council should engage in meaningful action and vote against the amendments and in favor of the resolution.

Pakistan states that colonialism violates the principles and purposes of the UN charter. Millions of people face daily hardships and are affected by foreign occupation. Therefore, the Council has to act in favor of the UN principles and obligations and condemn exploitation, systematic racism and discrimination produced by colonialism.

India supports the resolution as one of the first independent countries of the world.

Philippines is concerned that the legacy of colonialism is not mentioned enough in UN discussions. There is the need for an honest and open-minded platform on this subject. The country regrets the nonchalance and denial of countries on the effects of the legacy of colonialism. The Philippines support the resolution and reject the amendments.

Amendment L.58 on A/HRC/48/L.8 WITHDRAWN

Amendment L.59 on A/HRC/48/L.8 - United Kingdom,

Explanation of vote on L.59

The Russian Federation states that the reason of the amendments is to exarcebate the politicized discussion within the Council. The country rejects this approach and will vote against both amendments.

Venezuela rejects the amendment as it is an attempt to divert the attention on other issues and dilute the sense of responsibility. The state supporting these amendments impose coercive unilateral measures and claim to protect the human rights. The cosponsors of the amendment continue to withhold money to the Venezuelan people during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cuba does not full agree with the amendments as they seek objectives that are different than the goals of the resolution. Cuba states that the amendments have never been presented to Cuba and therefore will vote against them.

The Marshall Islands stresses the importance to focus on urgent of human rights violations and on the effects of the legacy of colonialism.


YES: 16

ABST: 16

NO: 13

Amendment L.60 on A/HRC/48/L.8 – United Kingdom

Explanation of vote on L.60

Venezuela is against the amendment suggested by the UK as this amendment is based on the same argument presented earlier. It calls for a recorded vote.


YES: 15

ABST: 17

NO: 13

Explanation of vote before the vote on Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.8 revised and amended

The UK wishes for a recorded vote as the issue requires more thought and discussion. The UK thanks for the consideration of its amendments. However, it will abstain from the vote.

Austria on behalf of the EU will not support the resolution since it will not help fighting the cause of colonialism. The resolution has a narrow view on the issue and so the EU will abstain.

Germany aligns itself with the EU. The country stresses the importance to continue the discussion on the legacy of colonialism within the Council and the creation of an effective mechanism. This resolution duplicates existing mechanisms. Therefore, Germany proposes to finance already existing mechanisms. Germany will abstain from the vote.

Argentina support of the resolution and thanks the flexibility of the sponsors during the discussions.


YES: 27

ABST: 20

NO: 0

Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.13 "Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order" - Cuba

Explanation of vote before the vote on Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.13

Ukraine is committed to support the practical efforts that aim to promote an equitable international order. However, the country disagrees with the approach chosen as it goes beyond the mandate of the HRC. UN principles such as the integrity of states, sovereignty and fundamental freedoms are not recognized. Ukraine demands a recorded vote.

Austria on behalf of the EU supports an equitable and democratic world order. However, some of the elements of the mandate are chosen arbitrarily and go beyond the scope of the Council. Therefore, the EU will not support the resolution and vote against it.


YES: 30
NO: 14

Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.17/Rev.1 "Question of the death penalty" – Benin, Mongolia, Switzerland, Belgium, Benin, Costa Rica, France, Mexico, Republic of Moldova

General comments on Resolution and amendments

Austria on behalf of the EU believes that capital punishment is cruel, inhumane, irreparable and irreversible. The abolition of death penalty is not a question of culture or religion but rather a question of political will. According to the EU, the draft resolution is balanced. The EU regrets that states use the argument of sovereignty in order to not take action on the issue. Under the pretext of sovereignty people are criminalized and executed. The death penalty must be limited to most serious crimes. Unintentional killing, leaving a religion or expression of opinion do not constitute most serious crimes. The EU welcomes the annual panel discussion about the most serious crimes. The EU will vote against all amendments and in favor of the draft resolution.

Argentina firmly opposes all crimes against individuals and strongly encourages the abolishment of the death penalty. Argentina welcomes the fact that yearly more states abolish the death penalty. The country believes that the Council will help articulate a consensual opinion to death penalty and abolish it in future. Argentina would have preferred that the draft resolution condemn countries that use the death penalty.

Eritrea highlights the importance of ensuring fundamental rights such as the rights of victims. The country notes that there is no international consensus on the most serious crimes. Eritrea reminds that international law is unambiguous. States are sovereign and can define themselves most serious crimes and choose their respective justice system. Eritrea regrets that the draft resolution does not recognize sovereign rights and domestic judicial systems. Therefore will vote in favor of the amendments and abstain from voting.

Libya reminds that no consensus has been achieved on death penalty. International law leaves states the possibility to define most serious crimes but have to choose a penal system aligned to International law. Libya's national legislation is aligned with international law and death penalty is applied only for the most serious crimes. Libya regrets the core groups' refusal of propositions and will therefore vote against the resolution. If the resolution is adopted, Libya will disassociate from the resolution.

Fiji supports the draft resolution and objects the amendments. Fiji informs that the island abolished the death penalty in law and practice by 2002. The last remnants of death penalty have been removed in 2015. The death penalty also has not been used since 1964. Fiji informs that most states have joined the movement to abolish the death penalty. The draft proposal is about the protection of human rights concerned by death penalty and therefore Fiji will vote in favor of the draft resolution.

Amendment L.63 on A/HRC/48/L.17/Rev.1 –Singapore

Explanation of vote on L.63

Mexico rejects the amendment as it seeks to change the legal value of treaty bodies. Mexico agrees that general comments are not legally binding. However, Mexico is convinced that the Council has not the mandate to discuss and determine resources of international law. It falls to the states who agreed on the treaty bodies. This amendment has a big influence on treaty bodies and the interpretation of treaties. Its adoption will be negative on institutional and judicial level. Mexico votes against the amendment and calls everyone to do the same.

Germany states that the aim of the amendment is to define the legality of general comments in resolution. The amendment weakens human rights bodies, the development of international law and the interpretation of treaties. Germany rejects the approach will vote against the amendment.


YES: 17
NO: 22

Amendment L.64 on A/HRC/48/L.17/Rev.1 –Singapore

Explanation of vote on L.64

Uruguay is convinced that the right to life is an essential human right. The death penalty is the most blatant violation of this right. Uruguay rejects the amendment as it seeks to modify paragraph 23. The restrictive interpretation on the most serious crimes will change and so limit the scope of the resolution. Uruguay believes that the amendment weakens the broad understanding of human rights since serious crimes must be interpreted in a restrictive manner. Uruguay encourages all states to reiterate their commitment to protect the right of life and vote against the amendment.

France rejects the amendment as it proposes unnegotiable points. France reminds that the Council referred the notion of the most serious crimes in past resolutions.

Netherlands believes that the amendment is misleading as it suggests to limit the interpretation of the most serious crimes to the Human Rights Committee and the Secretary General. The Netherlands remind that te notion of the most serious crimes has been reflected earlier in the ICCPR, ECOSOC and Human Rights Council resolutions. So it is unnegotiable to interpret the notion in a laxist manner. The Netherlands will therefore vote against the amendment.


NO: 20

Amendment L.65 on A/HRC/48/L.17/Rev.1 - Egypt

Explanation of vote on L.65

France rejects this amendment that aims to include a new paragraph referring to domestic debates. France believes that decision on death penalty should not be taken on a national level. The public opinion is not sufficient to take decisions. Debates on death penalty must be enlightened by case law, international humanitarian obligations and worldwide trends.

Fiji rejects the amendment. Fiji believes that new paragraph is not necessary. PP26 and OP10 of the draft resolution already contain reference to domestic debates. The proposed amendment is misleading because evidence shows that public opinion is far less resistant to death penalty than it is often portrayed. Therefore leaving the decisions to public debate is counterproductive.


YES: 18
NO: 20

Amendment L.66 on A/HRC/48/L.17/Rev.1 – Saudi Arabia

Explanation of vote on L.66:

Mexico rejects this amendment as it seeks to determine proper legal penalties. The goal of the draft resolution is that the criminal system is compatible with international law. However, the amendment proposed seeks to put sovereignty above international law and the universality of human rights. Art.27 of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties stipulates that a state cannot use its legislation as an argument to violate its international obligations. Mexico informs that the draft resolution never intended to undermine states to have legal systems.

The UK believes that the amendment undermines the intent of the draft resolution. The UK informs that the draft proposals does not seek to change national criminal legislatures or question state's sovereignty. The UK considers the amendment irrelevant and calls for a vote.


YES: 18
NO: 19

Explanation of vote before the vote on Draft Resolution

India: believes that every state has the sovereign right to abolish, retain or impose moratorium on the death penalty. India uses the death penalty only in the case of most serious crimes. In addition, the country prerequisites safeguards such as the right to offer hearings by independent court, minimum guaranties of defense and the possibility of being reviewed by a higher court. Indian laws contain specific provisions in the case of pregnant women and prohibit the execution of juvenile offenders, people with mental health issues and people living in poverty. India states that the resolution is imbalanced and fails to accept that there is no international consensus on capital punishment.

Bahrein stresses that international law has not found a consensual definition of the most gravest crimes. Each states has the sovereign right to adopt laws that are appropriate to its national circumstances. For many states the death penalty is an important part of the national criminal and judicial system. Bahrein urges the importance of respecting different opinions and paths. The draft resolution is not balanced as it seeks to prohibit the death penalty without giving full consideration of difference in opinion. Therefore, Bahrein will vote against the draft resolution.

The Republic of Korea thanks the core group and will vote in favor of the draft resolution. The country has not used the death penalty over the last 24 years. Korea believes that the abolishment is a weighty matter that concerns the fundamentals of state's criminal punishment systems. Korea will continue the debating on the considering the sentiment of its public opinion.

Japan informs that it attaches importance to the transparency during procedures related to the death penalty to prevent the discriminatory use. Japan regrets that the resolution is biased and seeks the moratorium and abolition of the death penalty. International law has not prohibited the use of death penalty as long the action is compatible with international obligations. Japan informs that it publishes the number of executions and people on death row to provide transparency and to ensure the right of defense. Japan states that the abolition or maintenance are issues that concern the national public opinion as the fundaments of national criminal systems are at stake. Japan will vote against the resolution

Pakistan informs that ICCPR stipulates the sovereign right to determine the most serious crimes and the possibility to act upon it with the death penalty. Pakistan states that its policies on death penalty are in full accordance to the ICCPR and international law. Pakistan informs that it only applies the death penalty when the full process of law is respected. Minors are exempted of the death penalty. For these reasons Pakistan does not support the draft resolution. It will disassociate from it if adopted

China states that the death penalty is a question of sovereignty. In case of retention or abolition of the death penalty, the judicial system, national prosperity, and the cultural and historic background of a country should be respected beforehand. China has only applied the death penalty on criminals that have committed the most serious crimes. China will therefore vote against the draft resolution.


YES: 29



Closed the 42nd meeting by president of HRC Nazrat 


8th of October 2021: 43th Meeting Vote Item: 3 – 43rd Meeting

All sources used to draft the report can be found here. Report drafted by Siran Cheng on October 11, 2021.

Composition of the HRC

Vote on Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.23/Rev.1 – "The human right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment" – Costa Rica, Maldives, Morocco, Slovenia, Switzerland ADOPTED

43 YES

0 NO






27 NO




30 NO




30 NO




27 NO




26 NO




30 NO




30 NO




26 NO




26 NO




28 NO


VOTES ON DRAFT RESOLUTIONS UNDER AGENDA ITEM 3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development – Costa Rica, Ms. Catalina Devandas Aguilar (Introduction L.23/Rev.1)

Remarks of their votes

Brazil, Mr. Tovar da Silva Nunes (L.23/Rev.1) supports the universal recognition of right to clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

Russian Federation, Mr. Yaroslav Eremin (Introduction L.33-L.42) state that the initiative of itself is against the Russian proposal for the approach of discussion. Every subdivision of the UN is established for a reason. Overloading the council with the matters of the environment ignores the fact that the council does not have a mandate in this area. Russia requests for a recorded vote. Russia will abstain.

Mexico, Ms. Erika Gabriela Martínez Liévano has withdrawn its co-sponsorship and Mexico reaffirms that everyone has a right to a safe and clean environment.

Uruguay, Ms. María Alejandra Costa Prieto

Republic of Korea, Ms. Yu Jin Nam

Germany, Mr. Ralf Schröer

Namibia, Ms. Julia Imene-Chanduru

Fiji, Mr. Anare Leweniqila

Italy, Mr. Gian Lorenzo Cornado

Philippines, Ms. Majella Cristy U. Pua-Diezmos

Germany, Mr. Ralf Schröer (L.33)

Pakistan, Mr. Khalil ur Rahman Hashmi thanks the core group and hope that the political affirmation by the council will further galvanize the effects of negative climate change. Pakistan will vote yes.

Japan, Mr. Taguchi Kazuho expresses gratitude for the core group. The environmental right is ambiguous as our legal concepts. Japan will not fully support this resolution and will abstain.

Poland, Mr. Zbigniew Czech thanks the members of the core group. Questions about potential legal implications. Poland do not have time to analyze and consult the latest changes in the report. Poland will vote in favor.

Marshall Islands, Mr. Samuel K. Jr. Lanwi withdrew its co-sponsorship. Small island states are most vulnerable, although least contributing to the climate challenge.

Indonesia, Mr. Bonanza Perwira Taihitu hope that the draft resolution unties this council and gains more support. Indonesia will vote in favor.

China, Mr. Jiang Duan state that a sound environment is a necessity. China state that some parts of the resolution have shortcomings. China will abstain from voting.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ms. Rita French state that UK is committed to the resolutions of COP25. The UK is concerned of environmental degradation for human rights. The UK will vote in favor.

43 YES


0 NO

Ms. Nazhat Shameem Khan, President of the Human Rights Council ADOPTION

Vote on Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.26/Rev.1 - "Human rights implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on young people" - Uzbekistan, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, El Salvador, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Tunisia ADOPTED (without a vote) Votes on Draft Resolutions under Agenda Item 3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development

El Salvador, Mr. Joaquín Alexander Maza Martelli introduced the draft resolution

Uzbekistan, Mr. Ulugbek Lapasov state that the pandemic has exacerbated the human rights situations around the world, in particular women and girls.

Russian Federation, Ms. Guzal Khusanova disassociate itself from paragraph 4 on the draft resolution.

Ms. Nazhat Shameem Khan, President of the Human Rights Council ADOPTED without a vote

Vote on Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.22 - "Human rights and indigenous peoples" - Mexico, Guatemala ADOPTED (without a vote) Votes on Draft Resolutions under Agenda Item 3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development

Guatemala, Ms. Carla María Rodriguez Mancia (Introduction) seeks to bolster the protection and rights of indigenous people around the world.

Mexico, Ms. Erika Gabriela Martínez Liévano (Introduction) draft resolution also include the full participation of indigenous people.

Indonesia, Mr. Bonanza Perwira Taihitu has faithfully supported the indigenous people's resolutions. The concept of indigenous people is not applicable in the Indonesian context. Indonesia supports the council's work to recognize the rights of indigenous people and join the consensus.

Philippines, Ms. Majella Pua-Diezmos supports all UN efforts to enhance the rights of indigenous people.

Ukraine, Ms. Yevheniia Filipenko state that need for human right policies needs to be enhanced. Ukraine supports resolution L. 22.

Russian Federation, Ms. Guzal Khusanova made constructive proposals to the resolutions, but the authors turned this seminar into a broader discussion on indigenous people.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ms. Rita French welcomes countries with large population of indigenous people with jurisdictions to protect their rights.

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Mr. Manuel Enrique García Andueza state that it is important to respect the cultural diversity of indigenous people. Venezuela faces economic blockage, but till protect the rights of their indigenous people. ICMs impedes Venezuela's protection of indigenous people.

Ms. Nazhat Shameem Khan, President of the Human Rights Council ADOPTED without a vote.

Vote on Draft Resolution A/HRC/48/L.18 "The right to development" Azerbaijan (on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries) ADOPTED

29 YES

13 NO


Votes on Draft Resolutions under Agenda Item 3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development

Azerbaijan (on behalf of NAM), Mr. Shahriyar Hajiyev (Introduction) highlights that the heads of the state of the nonaligned movement voted to recognize the right to development as a human right. The pandemic has affected the right to development. They call on council members to support the draft resolution.

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Mr. Héctor Constant Rosales expresses its support to the draft report. Enjoying other human rights is impossible without recognizing the right to development.

Marshall Islands, Mr. Samuel K. Jr. Lanwi state that the use of greenhouse gases is degradation for the environment. The Marshall is facing many challenges. Development must facilitate climate adaptations and resilience.

India, Mr. Pawankumar Tulshidas Badhe the right of development is a fundamental human right. At national level, countries have the responsibility to realize the right of development. The draft resolution calls upon all states to realize the right of development.

Austria (on behalf of EU), Ms. Elisabeth Tichy-Fisslberger emphasizes that the realization of the right to development is owned by the states to their citizens. Human right, democracy and rule of law is prerequisite to a sustainable development. The EU opposes any legal binding requirement in a draft resolution. EU cannot accept more allocation and will vote against it.

Armenia, Mr. Andranik Hovhannisyan has been voting in favor for the right of development. Everyone has the right to pursuit their economic and cultural development. All constructive criticism was ignored by Azerbaijan. Armenia will abstain from voting.

Mexico, Ms. Erika Gabriela Martínez Liévano state that Mexico has supported multilateral initiatives. The best way to guarantee the right to development, insisting to develop a LBI only seeks financial and human resources. Mexico must objectively assess the matter.

Uruguay, Ms. María Alejandra Costa Prieto state their reservations of a LBI. The international community has the declaration of the right to development. The development agenda related via Agenda 2030, understands that the efforts of states are making and there should be not duplication of it. Uruguay will abstain from voting.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ms. Rita French is fully committed to fulfillment of human rights. The UK do not support resolution L18. The language used in the draft resolution state that development is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of human right. The right of development is guaranteed by the state. Legal binding instrument is of concern, as it is not the most appropriate mechanism.

France, Mr. Lucas Froment state that the concept of development, unlike the report drafters, that human rights are also a means to attain sustainable development. France will vote against the draft resolution.

Ms. Nazhat Shameem Khan, President of the Human Rights Council (Adoption)


Cultural Diversity and Sustainable Development for Peace