SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 28th MEETING
Chairman: Mr. O’DONOVAN (Ireland)

CONTENTS

AGENDA ITEM 75: ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE (continued)

AGENDA ITEM 85: HUMAN RIGHTS AND SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (continued)

AGENDA ITEM 86: QUESTION OF A CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (continued)

AGENDA ITEM 87: INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS (continued)
	(a)	REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
	(b)	STATUS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS AND THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL 
	(c)	ELABORATION OF A SECOND OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, AIMING AT THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL 

AGENDA ITEM 91: TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT (continued)
	(a)	UNILATERAL DECLARATIONS BY MEMBER STATES AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL 
	(b)	DRAFT CODE OF MEDICAL ETHICS: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

AGENDA ITEM 76: INTERNATIONAL YOUTH YEAR: PARTICIPATION, DEVELOPMENT, PEACE: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (continued)

AGENDA ITEM 77: POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES RELATING TO YOUTH (continued)
	(a)	PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SPORTS EXCHANGES AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL 
	(b)	CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE UNITED NATIONS AND YOUTH  AND YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
	(c)	CO-ORDINATION AND INFORMATION IN THE FIELD OF YOUTH: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

AGENDA ITEM 78: NATIONAL EXPERIENCE IN ACHIEVING FAR-REACHING SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOCIAL PROGRESS: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (continued)

AGENDA ITEM 80: QUESTION OF THE ELDERLY AND THE AGED: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (continued)

AGENDA ITEM 84: WORLD ASSEMBLY ON AGING: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (continued)

AGENDA ITEM 90: CRIME PREVENTION ADN CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND DEVELOPMENT: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (continued)

The meeting was called to order at 10.45 a.m.
AGENDA ITEM 75: ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE (continued) (A/36/137, 158, A/36/3/Add.23 (part I); A/C.3/36/L.4)

AGENDA ITEM 86: QUESTION OF A CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (continued) (A/36/3/Add.23 (part I); A/C.3/36/6/. A/C.3/36/L.14) 

AGENDA ITEM 87: INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS (continued) 
	(a)	REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIHTS COMMITTEE (A/36/40)
	(b)	STATUS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS AND THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (A/36/455) 
	(c)	ELABORATION OF A SECOND OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, AIMING AT THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (A/36/441 and Add.1) 

AGENDA ITEM 91: TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT (continued) (A/36/3/Add.19 and 23) 
	(a)	UNILATERAL DECLARATIONS BY MEMBER STATES AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (A/36/426 and Add.1) 
	(b)	DRAFT CODE OF MEDICAL ETHICS: REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (A/36/140 and Add.1-4)

	1.	Miss LORANGER (Canada), speaking on agenda item 75, said that the instruments that were the foundation of the United Nations clearly reflected the importance the world community attached to freedom of thought, belief and conscience. She also pointed out that, under Article 1 of the Charter, Member States had pledged to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, without distinction as to religion, that article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights defined freedom of religion and that article 18, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further elaborated on the basic principle thus established. However, she drew attention to the fact that, although freedom of thought, belief and conscience had been recognized in principle, it was not always respected in practice. That situation had prompted the General Assembly, in resolution 1781 (XVII), to ask the Commission of Human Rights to prepare a draft declaration on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance. She reviewed the background of the draft, whose long and difficult preparation had followed the traditional procedure for the elaboration of international instruments: various reports and versions had been submitted for adoption by the competent bodies, and Member States had made known their positions and particular concerns at each stage. The final text was therefore consistent with the expectations of a large number of States, as was clear from the results of the vote in the Commission on Human Rights. The draft declaration which the Economic and Social Council was recommending to the Assembly for adoption and which was currently before the Committee (A/C.3/36/L.4), while not an end in itself, did endorse United Nations efforts to overcome the difficulties and pitfalls involved int he protection of human rights and to negotiate a body of international norms on that subject. She therefore expressed the hope that the General Assembly would adopt the draft declaration at its thirty-sixth session. Member States must remain vigilant to ensure that the lofty ideals on which the declaration was based became a reality. 
	2.	Mr. LAGOS (Chile), speaking on agenda item 75, described the main stages in the recognition of the right to freedom of though, conscience and religion, starting with the adoption of the Charter, which referred in very general terms to “respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, expressly provided for that right in article 18. In 1952, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities had conducted a study of religious discrimination and religious practices, which had resulted in several valuable drafts and principles. In addition, there had been General Assembly resolution 1781 (XVII), dated 7 December 1962, in which the Assembly had requested the preparation of a draft declaration and a draft international convention on the preparation of a draft declaration and a draft international convention on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, and, lastly, General Assembly resolution 2200 (XXI), dated 7 December 1966, concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The international community’s interest in that matter had never diminished. Although it had taken 19 years of persistent effort to elaborate a draft declaration, that was because it had been necessary to overcome many difficulties and at times deliberately created impediments. 
	3.	The draft declaration contained in document A/C.3/36/L.4 filled a gap in the international norms governing the protection of human rights. The draft also was consistent with the Declaration on Religious Freedom, adopted in 1965 by the Vatican II Council, in which the Vatican had recognized how important it was, for the legal protection of freedom of religion, for there to be a peaceful co-existence between individuals and peoples in a world where the fate of all human beings was becoming increasingly interconnected. Mindful of that situation, and in keeping with its tradition of religious tolerance, Chile would clearly support the adoption of the draft declaration. 
	4.	The declaration was, however, only a first step in the struggle to provide adequate guarantees for the exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; it should eventually lead to a convention providing appropriate machinery to ensure its implementation and, at last, to end religious persecution- a vestige of a primitive era which, it was to be hoped, was gone for ever. Only then could the international community consider that it had attained the objective defined in 1959 in the study undertaken by the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. 
	5.	Mr. FRAMBACH (German Democratic Republic), speaking on agenda item 85, pointed out that the United Nations ahd been dealing with scientific and technological questions and their impact on human rights for more than 10 years, with contradictory results which had not always been accepted by his delegation. An outstanding positive result was unquestionably the Declaration on the Use of Scientific and Technological Progress in the Interests of Peace and for the Benefit of Mankind, contained in General Assembly resolution 3384 (XXX). After being pushed into the background for several years, the Declaration had again become the focus of attention, thanks to General Assembly resolution 35/130 A, which dealt with its implementation. The German Democratic Republic had been a sponsor of that resolution and the statement it had submitted in accordance with paragraph 4 thereof was contained in document A/36/429. 
	6.	The international aspects of the interrelationship between human rights and scientific and technological development (i.e., the safeguarding of peace and the peaceful co-existence of States) should be foremost. The German Democratic Republic would favour discussions on the question, centering on the following priorities. First, it should be borne in mind that new findings in science and technology did not automatically entail positive changes. On the contrary, there was daily evidence that they were being misused to accelerate the arms race and develop even more inhuman weapons of mass destruction, thus increasing the danger to peace. A case in point was the start of the production of the neutron bomb, which imperialist strategists claimed was humane. The weapon represented a new stage in the arms escalation; it brought nuclear war dangerously close and jeopardized the most elementary right of every human being: the right to life. It would be useful, therefore, in connexion with the debate on agenda item 85, to reach decisions aimed at curbing the arms race and preventing the introduction of new arms systems. Second, the vast possibilities scientific and technical progress opened up for the development of mankind should be examined. That would conform to the principles of the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, which had been intended to make the achievements of modern science and technology accessible to the developing countries. The results science had achieved in combating hunger and illiteracy and improving health-care systems were well known. Yet much more could be done if such enormous resources were not spent on armaments. His delegation welcomed resolution 38 (XXXVII) of the Commission on Human Rights, which called upon the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities to prepare a study on the use of the results of scientific and technological progress for the realization of the right to development. Third, it should be remembered that the property ownership system had always been the decisive factor in either making human work more fruitful, thanks to scientific and technical development, or intensifying social contradictions by changing the new sources of wealth into sources of misery. Thus, scientific and technical achievements had in capitalist countries led to intensified exploitation and growing unemployment of the people. The impact of scientific and technical development on the right to work and the conditions of work should therefore be examined more closely. The seminar held in 1972 by the United Nations Division of Human Rights in co-operation with the Austrian Government and the analysis made by the Commission on Human Rights in document E/CN.4/1194 were certainly steps in that direction, but efforts along those lines must be pursued. 
	7.	Turning to agenda item 86, he said that his country’s position on the drafting of a convention on the rights of the child was perfectly clear since his delegation was a sponsor of the draft resolution contained in document A/C.3/36/L.14. Work should proceed rapidly so as to arrive at an international treaty of global scope. 
	8.	Mr. RAKOTOMALALA (Madagascar), speaking on agenda items 75, 86, 87 and 91, said that Madagascar, in keeping with its traditions, could not do otherwise but subscribe to the provisions of the draft resolution on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance. Tolerance was certainly an essential competent of Malagasy wisdom and it manifested itself in a spirit of practical conciliation and the will to maintain good relations with one’s neighbour and defend the cause of justice and equity. The Constitution and legislation of Madagascar, moreover, ensured the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the exercise of which was limited only under the same terms as in article 1, paragraph 3, of the draft Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Churches and religious organizations were put int he same category as non-profit  associations and were therefore governed by administrative regulations. 
	9.	He welcomed the progress that the Commission on Human Rights had made in drafting a convention on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Constitution of Madagascar stipulated that no one could be prosecuted, arrested or imprisoned except in the cases provided for and according to the procedures prescribed by law, and that no one could be punished except by virtue of a law promulgated and published before the punishable act had been committed. No court, no police force, no executive agency could transgress those complementary particularly with respect to moral pressure and physical brutality. Although the law provided foe extenuating circumstances- provocation, self-defence, the need to maintain public order- it absolutely forbade torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Regrading the prison system, prisoners as well as those awaiting trial had the right to communicate with their lawyers and relatives within the limits set by the regulations; prisons and houses of detention were subject to inspection by specialized personnel and magistrates, and any negligence or abuse was subject to sanctions. 
	10.	 With regard to arbitrary or summary executions, he pointed out that Malagasy legislation assured all criminals accused of a crime subject to the death penalty of the safeguards provided for in article 6, 14 and 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 42 the Constitution stipulated that the law guaranteed all persons the right to obtain justice; as for the death penalty, it had been eliminated except for the extremely serious cases. No execution had in fact taken place in Madagascar since 1958. The death sentence now actually had only a deterrent power, clemency being almost automatically granted by the President of the Republic. 
	11.	 With regard to the draft Code of Medical Ethics, he was convinced that the adoption of such a code, which would remind doctors and health officials of their moral duties in the face of torture, would be an important step towards establishing international norms int he field of human rights. 
	12.	 He believed that the adoption of a convention on the rights of the child would be the best way to illustrate the awareness generated throughout the world by the observance of the International Year of the Child and it would serve to crown the activities undertaken within the context of the Year. 
	13.	 Mr. FURSLAND (United Kingdom), speaking on agenda item 85 and on behalf of the 10 Member States of the European Community, said that the benefits derived from scientific and technological developments could not be dissociated from the abuses to which they gave rise, nor could the prospect they opened up of a world free from hunger and want be dissociated from the treat they posed to human rights. It was the task of Governments and the international community to maximize the benefits and avert the abuses. Governments had the obligation not only to ensure those benefits for their peoples but also to assist poorer countries to share in them. The Member States of the European Community, which devoted $12 billion a year to their aid programmes (or 39 per cent of the global aid provided), were committed to that objective, as should be those countries which advocated most strongly the Declaration on the Use of Scientific and Technological Progress in the Interests of Peace and for the Benefit of Mankind. At the same time, Governments had the obligation to protect their peoples from the abuses of scientific and technological development, whether it was a question of modern weapons that threatened the very survival of the human species on the planet or of the misuse of psychiatry by authorities to imprison in mental hospitals perfectly sane individuals who disagreed with the established regime. The purpose of such practices was to remove such persons from participation in society, which constituted a flagrant violation of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or even by the administration of drugs, to reduce their capacity for independent though and action. Independent studies by Amnesty International and other bodies had shown that such practices existed in more than one continent, causing great suffering to those so victimized and creating an atmosphere of constant fear in the society as a whole. The Member States of the European Community therefore welcomed the preliminary report submitted by Mrs. Daes to the Sub-Commission, which contained guidelines for the protection of persons detained on the grounds of mental ill-health and principles for the protection of persons suffering from mental disorder (E/CN.4/SUB.2/474), and hoped that full consideration would be given to those guidelines and principles by the Commission on Human Rights at its thirty-ninth session and by the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session. Finally, the implications for individuals privacy of various advances in the area of electronics should not be overlooked. In that area as well, Governments had the obligation, in accordance with article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to protect the individual against oppression by authorities and other groups within his society which might exploit such discoveries. The study by Mrs. Questiaux, which would be submitted to the Sub-Commission at its coming session, would for the first time provide a basis for discussion of that subject. 
	14.	 Ms. AKAMATSU (Japan), speaking on agenda item 75, said that she was very happy to see that, after a quarter of a century of patient and meticulous labour, the Commission on Human Rights had finally completed work on a draft declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief, a text which was deserving of support, regardless of any flaws that might be discerned. 
	15.	 Her delegation was aware that the subject was a complex one and fully understood why there should be concern about adopting too hastily an instrument that was to be applied uniformly throughout the world, given the fact that the importance of religion varied greatly from country to country and individual to individual. Japan, whose Constitution guaranteed freedom of religion, thought and conscience to all its citizens, welcomed the advances made in that direction and hoped that one of the main sources of conflict within and between nations would be eliminated with the adoption of the draft Declaration and that all the peoples of the world would achieve the effective guarantee of their religious freedom. 

Draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.15
	1.	Mrs. DOWNING, Secretary of the Committee, announced that the following countries had joined the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.15; Chile, Equatorial Guinea, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Netherlands, Sierra Leone, Uganda, United Republic of Cameroon, Upper Volta, Viet Nam and Yemen. 
	2.	She drew the attention of the Committee to the financial implications of the draft resolution, which, if adopted by the General Assembly, would entail additional expenditures. The financial implications arising from operative paragraph 1 would be identical to those appearing in the report of the Secretary-General (A/36/215/Add.1) and would amount to $1,109,700, of which $1,066,400 would cover conference services and $43,300 the travel expenses of the staff servicing the meetings. Those non-recurrent expenditures would not affect the real growth rate of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 1982-1983. 
	3.	Mr. BOURCHIER (Australia) said that the draft resolution should be adopted by consensus; with regard to operative paragraphs 1 and 2, he proposed, after having held consultations with a number of delegations, that a day should be celebrated during which the youth of the entire world would symbolically plant trees. The Advisory Committee should be asked to consider that proposal. 
	4.	Draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.15 was adopted without a vote. 
	5.	Mrs. WARAZI (Morocco) sad that her delegation supported the commendable idea which had motivated the sponsors of the draft resolution, but she pointed out that the proposed objective could not be achieved in the immediate future in view of the difficulties which many states had in dealing with unemployment. She therefore proposed a number of amendments should be made without changing the basic idea underlying the draft resolution. Since no concrete measures were mentioned in the body of the text, the title of the draft resolution should be changed to read: “Efforts designed to secure the implementation of the human rights of youth, including the right to education and the right to work.” In order to make the text reflect the difficulties encountered by certain States, she suggested that the phrase, “whenever possible,” should be inserted after the word “implementation” in the fourth preambular paragraph. If that proposal was adopted, she would not insist that the right to education should be mentioned at the end of the paragraph. Since the problems of unemployment, criminality and drug abuse among youth could be solved not only by work but also by more education, the right to education and the right to work should be linked. She therefore proposed that the phrase “the pursuit of secondary and higher education and” should be inserted in the fifth preambular paragraph after the words “the importance of.” Furthermore, in the fifth line of that paragraph the word “emphasizes” should be replaced by the word “emphasizing.” In the second line of the sixth preambular paragraph the words “deal with” should be replaced by the verb “study,” and the wording of the sentence after the words “systematic and effective” should be rephrased to read: “measures for securing the implementation of the human rights of youth, including the right to education and work, which is the only solution to the problems of youth unemployment.”
	6.	She proposed that in operative paragraph 1 the phrase “as appropriate” should be replaced by the words “if they consider it feasible and appropriate” and that the rest of the paragraph after the words “administrative and other measures” should be replaced by the phrase “designed to solve the problems of youth unemployment.” In operative paragraph 2 the phrase “to education, professional training and” should be inserted between the words “the basic right of young people” and the words “to work” and a period should be placed after the owrd [sic] “work” the rest of the sentence being deleted. She proposed that at the end of operative paragraph 2 the words “securing of its right to work” should be replaced by the words “solving them.” Lastly, in the third and fourth lines of operative paragraph 4, the phrase “to the promotion of human rights of youth with special regard to the right to work” should be replaced by the following phrase: “to efforts aimed at the promotion of the human rights of youth, including the right to education and work.”
	7.	Mr. FURSLAND (United Kingdom), speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Economic Community, said that the Ten fully supported the objectives of the draft resolution, namely, the exercise of the right to work and the effort to combat unemployment, but they would abstain if the draft resolution was put to a vote, because a number of the provisions it contained were discriminatory. In guaranteeing the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by youth, care should be taken not to accord young people special rights which would make them a privileged group in relation to other groups, such as women and the elderly. The exercise of the right to work should not be dissociated from the exercise of the other rights guaranteed by the relevant provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, so as to prevent a new kind of discrimination between that right and the other rights. Care should be taken not to challenge the universality of human rights when sanctioning specific rights. Lastly, the phrase, “right to work” has not precisely defined in the draft resolution. He wondered whether the right to work meant the right to choose a job. The lack of specific context for including that formula made it too vague and open to conflicting interpretations. 
	8.	For all those reasons, the member States of the European Community felt that the draft resolution was ill-conceived and not capable of achieving its objectives and that the proposed activities would therefore only be futile. 
	9.	Mr. NORDENFELD (Sweden) thanked the representative of Morocco for the amendments which she had made to the draft resolution (A/C.3/36/L.20/Rev.1) and proposed a further amendment to the text. The phrase “human rights of youth” was inappropriate and was too reminiscent of certain dubious privileges accorded to youth by Hitler and Mussolini; his delegation, therefore, proposed that the expression “human rights of youth” should be replaced in all cases by the following phrase: “enjoyment of human rights by youth.”
	10.	Mrs. WARZAZI (Morocco) said that the objection raised by the Swedish delegation was well-founded, and she therefore wished to reword her amendments. The new title of the draft resolution would read: “Efforts designed to secure the implementation and enjoyment of human rights by youth, including the right to education and the right to work.” In the third line of the sixth preambular paragraph the phrase “the securing of human rights of youth” should be replaced by the phrase “the securing and the enjoyment of human rights by youth.” In the third line of operative paragraph 4 the phrase which had been amended to read “to efforts aimed at the promotion of human rights of youth, including the right...” should be replaced by the following phrase: “to efforts aimed at the promotion of human rights and their enjoyment by youth, including the right...”. 
	11.	Miss BROSNAKOVA (Czechoslovakia) said that the sponsors of the draft resolution could not accept substantive amendments because the proposed text itself was already a revised version which took account of the difficulties which certain provisions of the initial draft had caused various delegations. It was for that reason that operative paragraph 1 was worded in such a flexible manner. Furthermore, the right to work was one of the rights provided for in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and could not in any way be omitted from a draft resolution which had been drawn up essentially on that basis. 
	12.	The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Committee should postpone action on the draft resolution so that the delegations could hold consultations.   Draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.23
	13.	Mrs. DOWNING (Secretary of the Committee) announced that the following countries had joined the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.23: Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Guyana, Mali, Mozambique and Philippines. 
	14.	Mrs. WARZAZI (Morocco) said that, however enthusiastic members of the Committee might be about certain resolutions, the practice was to adopt those draft resolutions by consensus. Her delegation would prefer that in such cases the draft resolutions should be adopted unanimously. 
	15.	The CHAIRMAN suggested that draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.23 should be adopted unanimously. 
	16.	It was so decided.   Draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.21
	17.	Mrs. DOWNING (Secretary of the Committee) announced that the following States had joined the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.21: Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Lebanon, Nepal, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Uganda and the United Republic of Cameroon. She then read out amendments to the text made by the representative of Egypt. The eighth preambular paragraph should b [sic] replaced by the following text:  “Also taking note of the valuable contribution UNESCO can make to the improvement of channels of communication between the United Nations, youth and youth organizations,”.  The other amendment was to replace the clause “the International Labour Organization and the United Nations Development Programme” in section B, paragraph 4, of the operative part by “the International Labour Organisation, the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.”
	18.	The CHAIRMAN asked whether the Committee wished to adopt the draft resolution unanimously or by consensus. 
	19.	Mr. BYKOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said he thought that there was no need to depart form General Assembly practice by specifying whether draft resolutions had been adopted by consensus or unanimously. He proposed that the usual practice should be followed by indicating simply that the draft had been adopted without a vote. 
	20.	Draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.21 was adopted without a vote.  Draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.26
	21.	Mrs. DOWNING (Secretary of the Committee) announced that the following countries had joined the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.26: Congo, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique, Poland Yemen. 
	22.	Mrs. IDER (Mongolia) said that, after consulting many Committee members, the sponsors of the draft resolution had decided to amend it, so that operative paragraph 3 (b) would read as follows: “(b) Participation of peasants, including landless peasants, as well as of women and youth in co-operatives;” That amendment although a minor one, should make it possible for many countries to approve the draft resolution, which might then be adopted by consensus. 
	23.	The CHAIRMAN announced that he had before him a request for a vote on draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.26; the vote on that draft was therefore deferred to a later meeting.  Draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.27
	24.	Mrs. IDER (Mongolia) announced that Grenada and Mozambique had joined the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.27. 
	25.	Mrs. DOWNING (Secretary of the Committee) announced that the financial implications of draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.27, and particularly operative paragraph 4 thereof, could be found in document A/C.3/36/L.29, which was now available. 
	26.	The CHAIRMAN said that he had before him a request for a vote on that draft resolution; he therefore suggested that the vote should be deferred to a later meeting. 
	27.	Mr. FAREED (Pakistan) proposed the following amendments: in the sixth preambular paragraph, int he first line the words “of obstacles” should be replaced by the words “of all obstacles”; in the the third and fourth lines, the phrase between the word “apartheid.” and the words “all forms of inequality” should be deleted and replaced by the following phrase: “military intervention, foreign aggression and occupation and alien domination as well as”. At the end of operative paragraph 1 the words “in any form, including military interference;” should be added. 
	28.	Mr. MAKKI (Oman) supported the Pakistani amendments, which he though substantially improved the text.  Draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.28 
	29.	Mrs. DOWNING (Secretary of the Committee) announced that the following countries had joined the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.28: Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Mali, New Zealand, Nicaragua and Romania. The Maltese delegation had requested that the full name of agencies and organizations should be used instead of acronyms; that would be done in the revised version of the draft. 
	30.	The CHAIRMAN said that the action on that draft resolution had been deferred to a subsequent meeting because the consultations had not yet been completed.   Draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.18/Rev.1
	31.	Mrs. DOWNING (Secretary of the Committee) announced that Nicaragua had joined the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.18/Rev.1. The financial implications of that draft resolution were to be found in document A/C.3/36/L.25. 
	32.	Mr. HACKETT (Chief, Resources Planning Section) said that the statement of the administrative and financial implications of draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.18/Rev.1 should be modified to take into account the oral revision made by the representative of the United States of America the day before; the provisions of operative paragraph 8 now applied also to paragraph 3 of the draft resolution. 
	33.	Mr. VELLA (Malta) said that it had been his understanding that a decision on the resolutions submitted under agenda items 80 and 84 would be taken at the same meeting. Since the adoption of a decision on draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.28 had been deferred, he proposed that the same decision should be taken with respect to draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.18/L.22.   Draft resolution A/C/3/36/L.22
	34.	Mrs. DOWNING (Secretary of the Committee) announced that the following countries had joined the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.22: Bahamas, Barbados, Bolivia, Colombia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Romania, Sudan, Sweden and Zaire. She pointed out the few stylistic changes already mentioned the day before by the representative of Venezuela, which concerned only the English text: in the fifth preambular paragraph, the reference to resolution “3202 (S-VII)” was to be replaced by “3202 (S-VI)”; at the end of the same paragraph, the words “a New International Economic Order” should be replaced by the words “the New International Economic Order.” Similarly, at the end of the second operative paragraph, the expression “of a New International Economic Order” should be replaced by the phrase “of the New International Economic Order.”
	35.	The CHAIRMAN suggested that action on that draft should be deferred to a later meeting because consultations between delegations were still under way.   Draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.25
	36.	Mrs. DOWNING (Secretary of the Committee) announced that the following countries had joined the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/36/L.24: Austria, Denmark, Ghana, Morocco, New Zealand, Norway and Uruguay. She also pointed out a formal change referring only to the English text; in the last line of operative paragraph 7, the words “with a view” should be replaced by the expression “with a view to.”
	37.	Mr. BYKOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that many delegations had expressed a wish to hold consultations immediately after the meeting on the draft resolutions on which no action had yet been taken. He thought it would save time to a later meeting. 

The meeting rose at 1.20 p.m.