NORTH KOREA

59th Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights:
Resolution on human rights violations in North Korea adopted

17 April 2003

59th Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights:
Resolution on human rights violations in North Korea adopted

On 16 April, the Commission on Human Rights adopted a resolution expressing concern over human rights situations in North Korea.

The draft was tabled under the Commission's agenda item on the "question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world".

In the resolution, adopted by a roll-call vote of 28 in favour and 10 against, with 14 abstentions, the Commission welcomed reports of the preparation of a law on physically disabled persons but expressed deep concern about reports of systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the country, including torture, public executions, imposition of the death penalty for political reasons, the existence of a large number of prison camps, the extensive used of forced labour, lack of respect for the rights of persons deprived of their liberty, and all-pervasive and severe restrictions on the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association.

A Representative of North Korea said the resolution was full of fabrications and that the European Union, which had tabled it, was always behaving arrogantly, as if it was entitled to the privilege of attacking developing countries in the Commission.

More on the proceedings:

UNCHR - www.unhchr.ch - (16.04.2003) In a resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), (E/CN.4/2003/ L.31/Rev.1), adopted by a roll-call vote of 28 in favour and 10 against, with 14 abstentions, the Commission expressed deep concern about reports of systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights, including torture, public executions, imposition of the death penalty for political reasons, the existence of a large number of prison camps, the extensive used of forced labour, and lack of respect for the rights of persons deprived of their liberty; all-pervasive and severe restrictions on the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association and on access of everyone to information, and limits imposed on movement; mistreatment of and discrimination against disabled children, while at the same time welcoming reports of the preparation of a law on physically disabled persons; continued violations of the human rights of women; noted with regret that the authorities of the Government had not created conditions to permit the international community to verify these reports in an independent manner and called upon the Government to respond to these reports urgently, including by ratifying human rights instruments and by implementing its obligations under instruments to which it was a party; by providing pertinent information concerning the above-mentioned issues; by implementing the recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Human Rights Committee; by refraining from sanctioning citizens of the DPRK who had moved to other countries; by cooperating with the United Nations system; by resolving, clearly and transparently, all the unresolved questions relating to the abduction of foreigners; and by adhering to internationally recognized labour standards; expressed deep concern about reports of a precarious humanitarian situation; called upon the authorities of the DPRK to ensure that humanitarian organizations had free and unimpeded access to all parts of the country in order for them to ensure that humanitarian assistance was delivered impartially on the basis of need; requested the international community to continue to urge the Government of the DPRK to ensure that humanitarian assistance, especially food aid, was distributed in accordance with humanitarian principles; and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to engage in a comprehensive dialogue with the authorities of the DPRK with a view to establishing technical cooperation programmes in the field of human rights.

The results were as follows:

In favour (28): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Against (10): Algeria, China, Cuba, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Russian Federation, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (14): Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, and Uganda.

A Representative of Cuba said Cuba was concerned at the proliferation of condemnatory resolutions of a geopolitical nature which had nothing to do with human rights. It was unjust to the cause of human rights to submit a draft resolution like the one before the Commission. Cuba would vote against it and called for a roll-call vote.

A Representative of China said China was against selectivity and the drafting of resolutions targeting specific developing countries. The Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had undertaken dialogues with many countries, including those of the European Union. And such dialogues should be continued. The draft resolution would not contribute to the relaxation of the tension nor resolve the problem faced by the Korean Peninsula. The Chinese delegation wondered why the European Union had to table the draft resolution at this time. The delegation believed that such a measure would not produce positive results concerning the situation actually prevailing in the region. China would vote against draft resolution L.31/Rev.1.

A Representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) said the DPRK categorically rejected the resolution submitted by the European Union, since it was full of fabrications. The European Union was always behaving arrogantly, as if it was entitled to the privilege of attacking a crowd of developing countries in the Commission. This year the European Union had submitted draft resolutions on eight countries. The European Union had betrayed its commitment to dialogue and cooperation with the DPRK, and the draft resolution was pursuing political purposes and not human rights. It was well known that following the DPRK C EU Summit Meeting in May 2001, both sides had until now been pursuing dialogue and cooperation in the area of human rights in an uninterrupted, regular and gradually expanding way.

It had been only two years since the establishment of relations between the DPRK and the European Union, yet the European Union had abruptly submitted a draft resolution unilaterally giving up on active human rights dialogue and cooperation. This was a source of disillusionment. Furthermore, in the draft resolution, the European Union had exaggerated the human rights situation in his country and had misled the Commission.

A Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said Syria supported the efforts of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to take the necessary measures to implement reforms in spite of the sanctions and restrictions imposed on it. Syria hoped these sanctions would be lifted. Syria would vote against the draft resolution.

A Representative of India said India had carefully examined the text of the draft resolution on the DPRK and would abstain in the vote. India believed the Commission could not advance some of the points indicated in the operative paragraphs of the resolution.