Sixty-second General Assembly
Plenary
76th & 77th Meetings (AM & PM)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS LANDMARK TEXT CALLING FOR MORATORIUM ON DEATH PENALTY

Adopts 54 Resolutions, 12 Decisions Recommended by Third Committee

The General Assembly today adopted 54 resolutions and 12 decisions recommended by its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), including a landmark text calling for a moratorium on executions to be established in all States that still maintain the death penalty, as well as a resolution strongly condemning rape against women and girls in all its forms, including in conflict situations.

The resolution calling for “a moratorium on the death penalty”, was passed by a vote of 104 in favour to 54 against, with 29 abstentions. (See annex VI.) It called on all States that still allowed capital punishment to “progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and reduce the number of offences for which it may be imposed”. Those countries were also called on to provide the Secretary-General with information on their use of capital punishment and to respect international standards that safeguard the rights of condemned inmates.

Echoes of the intense two-day debate that preceded approval in the Committee of the resolution on a moratorium on executions reverberated in the Assembly hall, with a number of delegations arguing that the death penalty was not illegal under international human rights legislation and that it was the sovereign right of each and every State to determine its own judicial system. Two similar proposals had reached the Assembly in 1994 and 1999; in the first case, it was defeated by eight votes, while in the second, it was withdrawn at the last minute.

Among those delegations opposing the resolution, the representative of Barbados said the European Union and other main sponsors were trying to impose their will on other countries. “Capital punishment remains legal under international law and Barbados wishes to exercise its sovereign right to use it as deterrent to the most serious crimes,” he said just ahead of the vote.

Singapore’s representative said it was unfortunate that the resolution’s co-sponsors had handled the issue not as a debate, but as a lecture. There had never been any attempt to reach consensus. They had ignored the diversity of States and their judicial systems. In addition, they had resorted to pressure tactics and demarches. While the co-sponsors would celebrate their victory, it had come at the expense of acrimony in the Third Committee. Each State had a sovereign right to choose its own political, criminal and judicial systems, he said, stressing that Singapore would continue to follow its own course in the matter.

Among the 17 resolutions adopted by recorded vote, were country-specific texts addressing the situation of human rights in Belarus (72 in favour to 33 against, with 78 abstentions, annex XX), the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (101 in favour to 22 against, with 59 abstentions, annex XVI), and Iran (73 in favour to 53 against, with 55 abstentions, annex XIX).

As in years past, the country-specific resolutions prompted heated debate, with several delegations -– notably from the developing world -– contending that they were selective and politically motivated, and that the Human Rights Council was the better venue to address such issues. Other representatives maintained that, as the only international body with universal membership, the Assembly was an essential forum for illuminating the world’s most critical human rights situations.

The stark divisions played out in a series of close recorded votes over the text on the human rights situation in Iran. While the resolution as a whole was ultimately adopted, before action was taken, Iran’s representative called for a motion of no action on the text, countering that his country and the majority of the international community believed the Human Rights Council was the most competent body to consider and monitor human rights. The Assembly’s consideration of questions such as that contained in the resolution was unwarranted. The motion was defeated by a vote of 84 against to 80 in favour, with 19 abstentions. (See annex XVII.)