A/39/PV.99 General Assembly

I call on the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania, who will introduce draft resolution A/39/L.35 and Add.l entitled "Law of the Sea". 322. Mr. HYERA (United Republic of Tanzania): The Assembly has before it draft resolution A/39/L.35 and Add.l, sponsored by 35 States. On behalfof the delegations of sponsoring States, I have the honour, for which I am grateful, to introduce the draft resolution. As usual, it is the product of exhaustive consultations among interested delega- tions. It is, of necessity, a compromise draft, which represents no more than a common denominator of many differing interests and does not, therefore, purport to meet all expectations. I wish, first, to thank all those delegations that took part in the negotiations on the draft resolution for their co- operation and spirit of accommodation. 323. This is the second year the General Assembly has had to address such a resolution, following the adoption at Montego Bay of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The subject is, therefore, not new. Nor, in fact, are most of the contents of the draft resolution. 324. Paragraph 1 once more recalls the historic significance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as an important contribution to the maintenance ofpeace, justice and progress for all peoples of the world. 325. Paragraph 2 expresses the satisfaction of the General Assembly at the very large number of signatures affixed to the Convention-something on which I shall have something to say shortly-as well as the number of ratifications deposited with the Secretary-General. 326. Now that the period when the Convention was opened for signature has expired, an appeal is being made to all States to ratify or accede to the Conven- tion at the earliest possible date so as to enable the Convention to enter into force as soon as possible. This appeal is reflected in paragraph 3, which calls upon all States that have not yet done so to consider ratifying or acceding to the Convention at the earliest possible date so as to allow the effective entry illtO force of the new legal regime for the uses of the sea and its resources. 327. Paragraph 4 calls upon all States to safeguard the unified character of the Convention and related resolutions adopted therewith. 328. Paragraph 5 calls upon States to desist from taking actions which undermine the Convention or defeat its object and purpose. This paragraph refets ~ppreciation for the report of the Secre!ary-General and development of the law of the sea, a man who, m respect to General Assembly resolution ?8/59 A unfortunately, passed away this year-Mr. Constan- an4 ~e.quests .~he Secreta.ry-Gene~al to cont~nue !he tin A. Stavropoulos, who was former Legal Counsel actIVities outlIned therem, speCIal emphaSIS .be~ng ofthe United Nations and the first Special Represen- placed on the ,,:ork of the Preparatory CommIssion tative ofthe Secretary-General for the Law ofthe Sea for the International Sea-Bed Authonty and for the before being succeeded by Mr Bernardo Zuleta who International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, unfortunately passed away iast year " including the implementation of resolution 11 of the 36 ' . f' . . Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the 3.. The servIces 0 thiS em!nel!t lawyer, Constan- Sea. Resolution II deals with the protection of tm Stavrol?oulos,.to the OrgamzatIon, and to the Law preparatory investments in pioneer activities related ofthe Sea ~n partlc~lar, go back to the very ~a.rly days to polymetaUic nodules of the Umted Nations. He was a key participant m . the 1958 and 1960 Conferences on the UlW of the 331. Through paragraph 8, the General Assembly Sea, and since the United Nations decided to deal will approve the programme of meetings of the with issues of the sea-bed and to convene the Third Preparatory Commission for 1985. During 1985 the United Nations Conference on the Law ofthe Sea, he Preparatory Commission is scheduled to hold its had been leading the United Nations team that regular session at Kingston from 11 March to 4 April helped organize and service those meetings until his and to hold a summer meeting at Geneva or Kings- country, Greece, decided after the Caracas sessipil to ton or in New York. The venue of this meeting will charge him with responsibilities in his Goverpment. be decided upon by the Preparatory Commission His international stature makes it unnecessaryfor me during its spring session. to attempt to relate his well-known contributions to the United Nations. The United Nations C-onvention 332. raragraph? calls up~n the. Secretary-G~neral on the Law of the Sea will remain a lasting monu- to con..iiiue ~o aSSIst ~tates m the ImplementatIOn !lf ment to all its eminent architects, and Mr. Constan- the Convent.IOn and In the development of a C?D;SIS- tin Stavropoulos is certainly one of them. tent and umform approach to the new legal regime . . . ." thereunder, as well as in their national, subregional 3~7. I .belIeve I. am v~Icmg th~ sentiments of all and regional efforts towards the full realization ofthe fnends m the Third Um~ed NatIons Conference on benefits therefrom, and invites the agencies and the Law ofthe S~ by statmg t~at ~e have lost one of bodies within the United Nations system to co- the gr~at m~n In the Orgam~tlOn. I rC9uest the operate and lend assistance in these endeavours. This delegation ofGreece to transmit to the famIly ofMr. is an important responsibility ofthe Secretary-Gener- Stavr0I!0ulos and to the Government of Greece our ai, and becomes particularly significant as States expression of deep sorrow and sympathy. proceed to implement the Convention, especially in 338. The subject before the Assembly is of such relation to areas under national jurisdiction. It is momentous-indeed, critical-importance to hu- important that the Secretary-General should provide manity that I feel that we can never too often remind advice and assistance to States in order that State ourselves of what the Convention on the Law of the practice develop in a coherent and uniform manner Sea offers and what it means to mankind. consistent with the Convention. It is ~qually i~por- 339. The United Nations Convention on the Law of tant that States be ena~led to .denve maximum the Sea, worked ODt and adopted with the commit- benefit from the.Conventlon and.m~orpor!lte devel- ment and full sponsorship of the General Assembly op~ent of manne resources wIthm their overall pursuant to its responsibility set out in the Charter: national development programmes. has been rightly described as the second most historic 333. In paragraph 10, the General Assembly re- institution for internation8:1 peace ~d co-operat~on quests the Secretary-General to report to the General a~er the Charter of the Untted N~tlOns. For, dealing Assembly at its fortieth session on developments WIth the us~s of more t~an two thl.rds ofour planet's relating to the Convention and on the implementa- total area, It ad~resses Important Issues and pursues tion of the present resolution; and in paragraph 11, our own commitments under the Charter. the last one; the General Assembly decides to include 340. Let me quickly draw the attention of the this item on the agenda of its fortieth session. Assembly to some of the commitments and promises 346 M pIes Governing the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor, . r. MAQUEIRA (Chile) (interpretation from and the Subsoil Thereof, beyond .the Limits of Spanish): In my capacity as Chairman of the Group N' 1 J . d" [I 49( of 77 ofthe Preparatory Commission for the Interna- atlOna uns IctlOn reso ution 27 XXV)] came . al S d about, and was adopted by consensus, which pro- tIon ea-Be Authority, which meets at the head- vides that the sea-bed beyond the limits of national quarters of that Authority at Kingston, it is my .. d' t' . h h' f . honour to address the Assembly in connection with Juns IC Ion IS t e common entage 0 mankind. The agenda item 34, entitled "Law of the sea". concrete expression of this resolution is part XI of the Convention. Those same countries now want to 347.. We'have taken note with interest of the report disre~rd and, what is more serious, to deJW those submItted by the Secretary-General (A/39/647 and p,pnclples, using legal arguments that only serve to Corr.l and Add.I) in connection with activities conc~al a regrettable lack of political will. Commis!.~on has requested the first group of of the Sea. applicants to resolve as soon as possible conflicts 400. My delegation has examined with particular with respect to the overlapping of the areas interest the chapter concerning the proceedings and claimed." resvlts of the second session of the Preparatory 393. Paragraph 86 of the report is ambiguous in Commission of the International Sea-Bed Authority that it fails to specify, as had been done twice by the and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Chairman of the Preparatory Commission, that this Sea, which took place at Kingston from 19 March to understanding was not reached by the Preparatory 13 April 1984. Belgium carefully followed the work Commission but by the parties concerned, that is, ofthat session as an observer and, beginning with the once again to our knowledge, France, India, Japan next session of the Preparatory Commission, will and the Soviet Union. attend as a full-fledged member, since it has just 394. As to paragraph 83, it simply is not accurate, signed the Convention. because it is based on language used in the under- 401. As was indicated in the statement made at the standing in question that has not been endorsed, time of signature, Belgium whole-heartedly hopes directly or indirectly, by the Preparatory Commis- that the Preparatory Commission will succeed in sion and has not been the object of any decision by correcting the insufficiencies and imperfections still the Preparatory Commission. contained in certain provisions of part XI and 395. The very notion of a first group of applicants annexes 3 and 4 of the Convention. We have has not been used by the Preparatory Commission or expressed the hope that, to that end, the Preparatory by its Chairman, except with reference to thp. terms Commission will prepare rules, regulations and pro- of the understanding that waS reached by ihe four cedures for the purpose of, on the one hand, facilitat- States concerned. The only decision that the Prepara- ing the acceptance of the new regime by the interna- tory Commission itself took with respect to registra- tional community as a whole and, on the other, tion ofpioneer investors is contained in paragraph 14 making possible the real exploitation of the common of document LOSIPCNIL.13, and it is to "complete heritage of mankind for the benefit of all-and the consideration of the draft rules on pioneer especially the least developed countries. It is in that investors and adopt them". That is the only decision same constructive spirit that the Belgian delegation that was taken by the Preparatory Commission in will continue to participate in the meetings of the that regard. Both part I and part II ofthe understand- Preparatory Commission. ing that I mentioned earlier, therefore, reflect the 402. Guided by the same desire to contribute views ofthe parties to that understanding only and as constructively to the progress of the work of the such have no effect on other States. Preparatory Commission, my delegation associates 396. We are aware, ofcourse, that the report of the itselfwith what was just said by the representative of Secretary-General was prepared for information pur- Canada in regard to paragraphs 83 and 86 of the poses omy and, as I indicated earlier, it is a very Secretary-General's report. In fact, those paragraphs helpful document. It is clear also that the only contain language which lends itself to some ambigu- auth:- ~tative statements on the work of the Prepara- ity and which my delegation, regretfully, cannot tory Commission are those contained in the docu- support. The agreement on the settlement ofdisputes ments produced at its meetings. Nevertheless, given concluded between France, India, Japan and the the misperceptions that may have developed with Soviet Union did not culminate in a decision by the respect to the stage reached by the Preparatory Preparatory Commission. But we get a different Commission in its consideration ofthe registration of impression from paragraphs 83 and 86 of the report. pioneer investors, we thought it might be helpful to Mr.· Warioba, the Chairman of the Preparatory clarify the matter at this stage. Commission, confined himself to reading out the 397. Although we need not proceed from a sense of agreement, and the Commission was not called upon urgency, there is still a great deal of ground to be to take a stand on it. Hence, Belgium could not be covered and much work to do in the context of the considered to be a party to that agreement. My Preparatory Commission. We must address the is- Government feels that the question of the settlement sues adequately and com~rehensively. For its part, of disputes can be solved satisfactorily only by Canada will spare no effort in contributing to a agreements that include all the parties that could be 3uccessful outcome of its work. To a very great affected by overlappings or encroachments at a given extent, the future of the Convention depends on the site. success achieved by the Preparatory Commission. 403. Finally, I would repeat my Government's hope 398. Mr. SWINNEN (Belgium) (interpretation from that, ~eneral!y speaking, and in accordanc~ with the French): I wish first of all to reply to the criticisms prinCIple offinancial responsibility, sound budgetary Para~aph 86 states: "At the end of the Geneva resolution. meetmg the Chairman announced that an under- 414. My delegation would like to emphasize that standing had been reached on the procedure and on a the Provisional Understanding, being essentially an timetable for conflict resolution for the first group of a~reement to avoid conflicts arising from overlap- applicants." pIng claims to mining sites, does not contain in any gi~es a comparatively wid~ scope to compulsory 422. We have listened to statements in the present third-I?arty settle~ent. of .dlsput~s~ an as~ct that debate mentioning the Provisional Understanding Italy,.m co~formlty With Its tradition, conSiders of signed on 3 August by eight States, including Italy. In the highest Importance. some of those statements, the Provisional Under- 417. It is well known that Italy has considerable standing has been Qualified as illegal. It has also been difficulty with provisions of the Convention dealing said that it contains a new regime for the exploitation with deep sea-bed mining. These difficulties explain of the international sea-bed. our hesitatio~ before signing the Conventi9n~ Ev~n 423. My delegation, together with those ofBeiBium, though we thmk that the ?reparat~~ CommiSSion, m France, the Federal Republic ofGermany, Japau, the Who~e wor~ we have actively partlclpa!ed as ~bsery- Netherlands and the United Kingdom, is OIl record e~, IS making good progre~s~ these difficulties stdl with a firm rejection of those contentions, which are e?Us!. We s~ted them explICitly at the moment of not new. We wish to recall the statement made on slgnmg, as d~d ~ther States. We ~ere pleased to note behalf of these countries by the chairman of the that, when sl~mg the Convention on 7 D~~ember, Netherlands delegation at the Preparatory Commis- the representative or.th~ Eur~pean (:ommumtY made sion meeting pn 14 August 1984, which is reproduced a statement along Similar lines also. in document LOS/PCN/52. Repeating what was said 418. We have examined the Secretary-General's in that declaration, we wish to state firmly that there report on the law ofthe sea [A/39/647 and CO". I and is no single provision in the Provisional Understand- Ai/d.l] with great interest. We consider it a very ing that would make it illegal. Moreover, the Provi- useful and informative document, and we welcome sional Understanding does not provide for a new it. regime for the exploration and exploitation of the 419. One ofthe aspects ofthe report that strikes my int~rnation~l sea-bed as ~n alternative to that of the delegation as particularly interesting is that it puts in Untted N~t!ons ConventIOn ,?n tl!e Law of the Sea. perspective deep sea-bed mining vis-a-vis the other The Prov!slonal U.nderstandl!1g IS, essentially co~- sea-related activities. The picture one gathers from cerned With conflict resolu~lon,. a~d as" ~uch It the report is that of an extremely wide and complex ~rresponds to one of the baSIC p~nclples ot l~tel'!1a- set of problems and activities that go far beyond t19nal law-~md, we may add, It IS perfectly m lIne those connected with deep sea-bed mining, which are With resolution II. rather specific and mostly projected well into the 424. As regards draft resolution A/39/L.35 and future. As is true for the sea-related activities and Add.1, which is submitted to us for approval, we interests of the States, the United Nations Conven- were pleased to participate in the discusslOJls that led tion on the Law of the Sea, th,: activities of the to its submission. Its text is very similar'to th~l of United Nations and of its Law of'the Sea Office resolution 38/59 A, which was approved last year, French~: The .annual debate on the law of the sea January WIll enable us to resolve all the pending makes It poSSIble for the General As~embly to draw problems prior to the third regular session of the up a balance sheet ofdevelopments WIth regard to the Preparatory Commission which is to meet at Kings- sub~ect of the law of the .sea that have occurred ton, from 11 March to 4 April 1985. dunng th~ past year. F,?r.thIS year, the balance sheet 432. All these developments cause us to feel opti- has certamly been posItIve. mistic about the continuance of the work of the 427. First of all, having signed the Convention on Preparatory Commission, provided that a construc- 10 December 1982 we can but be pleased at its tive atmosphere continues to reign. I can assure the support by the international community, which is Assembly that our delegation will continue its active illustrated in a particularly striking way by the participation in this work with the same open spirit it exceptionally large number of signatures to the has always shown. Conv~ntion since it was opened for sign~ture: Forty 433. Taking into account the aforementioned de- new slgnatut:es have been added to !ho~e mscnbed at velopments and the other activities carried out the ConventIon at Montego Bay, bnngmg the total to efficiently by the Secretary-General in implementa- 159. tion of the ambitious programme relating to ques- 428. The support given the Convention is also tions connected with the law ofthe sea as set forth in clearly demonstrated by the fact that every geograph- the medium-term plan, ~y del~tion will vote in ical region and all political, economic and social f~v,?ur ofthe draft r~oluh.on before us, as it has with systems are broadly represented. We are particularly 'S!1D.tlar draft resolutIOns m the past. pleased by.the large ~umber .ofsignatures by Europe- 434. Although the future of the Convention 011' the an countnes, and m partIcular by those of our Law of the Sea should lead us all to show'recep- pat:tne~ in ~he European ~nomic Community, tiveness and .mutual understanding, we regret that whIch ItselfSIgned the Convention on 7 December of some delegatIons have seen fit to give a polemical last year. As the Secretary-General emphasized in his turn to our debate by reiterating totally unjustified statement on 10 December, "Such overwhelming accusations with respect to the Provisional Under- support for a Convention of this universal character standing regarding Deep Sea-Bed .Matters, signed on is unprecedented." 3 August 1984 by eight countries, including France. 429. At the same time, the Secretary-General re- ~,?ntrary to what some might say, !!tat arrangement called that some States that support the Convention I~ m no way c~nt!'ary to !h~ ConventIon an? does not as a whole feel that the section on the exploitation of aIm at establIshing a regime parallel to It. the sea-bed is not entirely satisfactory. He has 435. This arrangement does not imply any legal promised to pursue efforts to reconcile positions in recognition by the signatories of the validity of areas where differences remain. permits that might be issued on the sole basiS of 430. We feel that that positive and constructive national legislatio? . attitude should be shared by all Members of the ~36. The sole objectIve ~r.t~e arrangement actually Organization if we wish to give the Convention a IS to removt: the POSSlblhty. of .fu!ure. conflicts truly universal nature. In this regard, we welcome the ~etween the slgnat,?ne~. ~us" m e~mInat~ng po~en- progress made by the Preparatory Commission and hal sources ofconflict, It IS ID; hne WIth t~e IntentIons ItS Special Commissions during the recent sessions at of the sponsors. of r~solutlon ~I..It IS therefore Kingston and at Geneva. The Preparatory Commis- perfectly compatIble With the obhgatlon accepted by sion has, generally speaking, proved itselfserious and the French Go~ernment to undertake act~vities in the realistic under the leadership of its Chairman Mr. deep sea-bed, ID ~e context of resolutIon 11, as is Warioba, to whom we pay a tribute for his outstand- s~own by the.lodglD~ of our aPl?lication for registra- ing guidance of the Commission's work. It is under 1Ion a~ ~ pIOneer mvestor WIth the Preparatory his leadership, in particular, that decisive progress CommIssIon. has been made in the implementation ofresolution 11 437. There is therefore no foundation for the of the Conference, notably in the agreement of 30 criticisms of certain delegations. Do they believe August 1984 on the settlement of disputes between that, if we had the slightest doubt as to the compati- persons wishing to register as pioneer investors and bility of this arrangement with the Convention, we on the proc~dure (or the settlement of disputes would be able to vote for draft resolution A/39/L.35 between applicants ID the first group. and Add.l, whose paragraph 5, and I quote, ~·Calls

In raising this point 444. With regard to paragraph 9, I think that in the of order, Mr. President, my delegation would like to second line of the French version, where it says draw your attention to an apparent discrepancy "conception coherente", it should say "une approche between the French text and the English text of draft coherente". Therefore it is merely a question of resolution A/39/L.35 and Add.1. This draft resolu- replacing the word "conception" by the word "ap- tion was negotiated in English among some interest- proche". In the fifth line of the same paragraph, two ed delegations, and the French text was translated words have been left out; where we say [the General from English. My delegation would have refrained Ass<?mbly] ':invite l~~ institutions et organismes des from making the following comments if the French ~at~on~ Umes ....' we should say".. .invite les text did not make substantial changes to what was mstltutlons et orgamsmes du systeme des Nations negotiated.by .those interested d~legations, the con- Unies", to put the wording in accordance with the tent of whIch IS clearly reflected m the English text. normal practice in this sort of text and also with the 440. I think that the French text must reflect the English text. exact content of the results of the negotiations that 445. Passin~ now to the preambular part of the took place, which, as I said, ~re very clearly reflected qraft resolutl<~m, some French colleagues advised, in the English text. Therefore, because of the very smce I was gomg to propose these corrections to the ~etailed nature o.f ~he compromise reached at the French ~ext, that I also propose that in the third line tIme of the negotIatIons, my delegation suggests on of the SIxth preambular paragraph, where mention is !he basis of consultations it carried out with' the made of "services consultatifs", it should merely say mt<?rested delegations, ~ainly French-speaking dele- "conseils", and would then read: "... de conseils et gatlons, that the followmg changes be made in the d'assistance...". French text. 446. As I have said, these comments are made with 441. First, I would draw attention to paragraph 3 of the sole objective of assuring that the content of the draft resolution A/39/L.35 an,' Add.1. In the English negotiations which took place this year in the prepa- t t 't' 1 d h ration of draft resolution A/39/L.35 and Add.1 ex ,I IS correct y state t at the General Assembly s.hould be refl.ected as clearly as possl·ble. The word- "Calls upon all States that have not done so to 'd 'c, • d' mg I have Just proposed results, as I said from consl er ratl1ymg or acce mg ...". In the French c.onsultation.s among interested delegations, and par- text, as we see, it is stated that the Assembly I 1 "Demande aux Etats qui ne 1'0nt pas encore fait tlCU ar y WIth those of francophone countries. d'envisager de signer et de ratifier ..."'.* 447. To conclude, after consulting with some inter- 442. That is not only inconsistent with the English ested deleg~tions-among which ar~ sponsors, as is t t b t 1 l' . I' !Dy delegatIOn, of the draft resolutIOn-and taking ex, u a so unrea IStIC. t IS not possible to demand. mto account that the target date for signature of the or call upon States to sign the Convention when we Convention, 9 December, has passed, and that the know the Convention is no longer open to signature number of Sta.tes and of all entities that have sl'gned because the closing date for that was 9 December: Th F h f 3 the ConventIOn has reached 159, my delegation as 1011~~~: text 0 paragraph should therefore read suggests a small, inoffensive oral amendment to the second line of the second preambular paragraph "Dema.nd~ a ~ous les Et~ts qui ne 1'0nt pas where "et notamment les 114 signatures" would b~ encore faIt d envlsager de ratIfier la Convention ou replaced by "et notamment les cent cinquante-neuf d'y adherer dans les meilleurs delais en vue de signatures". Since this is a factual suggestion, I think permettre l'entree en vigueur du nouveau regime i~ will not counter opposition from any representa- juridique des utilisations de la mer et de ses tIve here present, and while it is an oral amendment ressources;".* that it can be adopted. ' 443. With regard to paragraph 5, I think that the 448. Mr. SCHRICKE (France) (interpretation from French version as it stands now is quite far' from French): M¥ delegation would like to co.ngratulate the what was negotiated this year and is reflected in the representatIve· of Cape Verde on hIS meticulous corresponding paragraph of the English text. In fact, approach and his perfect command of the French the French text reflects the corresponding paragraphs language, and to state that we have no objections ~f last year's resolution. This was quite clearly whatsoever to the changes he has proposed to the changed during the negotiations. Therefore I would Fren~~ text of the draft resolution. We wish to speak suggest that the French version ofparagraph 5 should n0'Y SImply because we have noticed, in looking reflect the compromise which was reached with such agam more closely at the draft, that there is another difficulty this year. After having consulted with error in the translation of paragraph 3. At the French:speaking delegations and other interested beginning ofthe English text, it reads "all the States" delegatIons, I suggest that the Translation Service and in the French version the word "all" was not take. into account the following text of the French translated. The French text should therefore read versIon of paragraph 5: "I!ema?fle a tous les Etats qui ne 1'0nt pas encore "Demande aux Etats . . ."-and not ". . . a falt.... tous les Etats"-"de renoncer aux actions"-and 449. .Mr. GUMU~IO GRANI~R (Bolivia). (inter- not "toute action"-"sapant I'efficacite de la Con- pretatlOn from Spamsh): Comparmg the Spamsh text vention ou allant al'encontre de son objet et de son and the English text of the draft resolution, it seems but;".* we would have a similar problem in paragraph 5. The :words "a todos" would have to be deleted to keep the ·Quoted in French by the speaker." Spanish version consistent with the English and

I call on the representative of Egypt. 498. Mr. SHAKER (Egypt) (interpretation from Arabic): I am pleased to be the first speaker on this item in order to introduce, on behalf of the Federal Republic of Germany, Poland and my own country, draft resolution A/39/L.26. 499. The draft resolution consists of six preambular paragraphs and nine operative paragraphs. I need not go into the details, as I am sure all delegations are aware of its contents. However, I should like to underline its salient features which have been intro- duced this year, especially in the light of the success achieved by the Preparatory Committee during its fifth session, held at Vienna from 25 June to 6 July 1984. The main features ofthe draft resolution are as follows. 500. First, the General Assembly approves the recommendations and decisions contained in the report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference for the Promotion of Interna- tional Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy on its fifth session [A/39147]. Secondly, the Assembly' expresses its appreciation of the efforts of the ChaIrman of the Preparatory Committee, Mr. Novak Pribicevic of Yugoslavia, and the Secretary- General ofthe Conference, Mr. Mehta, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 38/60. Indeed, the efforts made by the Chairman and Mr. Mehta were instrumen~al in ensuring the success of the fifth session of the Preparatory Committee in a manner not witnessed in any ofthe previous sessions. During the period from January to May 1984 they conducted several rounds of informal consultations with mem- bers of the Preparatory Committee individually and collectively as well as with regional groups which so desired. Thirdly, in view of the constructive efforts made by the Chairman of the Preparatory Commit- tee and the Secretary-General of the Conference, the General Assembly requests the Chairman and the Secretary-General of the Conference to continue informal individual and group consultations, as necessary, in order to assist the' Committee in expediting the necessary procedural and substantive preparations for the Conference. Fourthly, the Gen- eral Assembly decides that the Preparatory Commit- tee will hold its sixth session at Vienna from 21 October to 1 November 1985 to consider, inter alia, the mechanism for formal/official inter-sessional intergovernmental work and the commen~mentof .preparation of the concluding document! or docu- ments of the Conference, as well as the mandate and corttposition of the group of internationally eminent

We now turn to the report of the Sixth Committee on agenda item 136 [A/39/784]. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft decision entitled "Draft body of princi- ples for the protection of all persons under any form ofdetention or imprisonment", recommended by the Committee in paragraph 9 of its Tt:port. The Com- mittee adopted the draft decision without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same? The draft decision was adopted (decision 39/418). 572. The PRESIDENT: The Assembly will now turn to the report of the Sixth Committee on agenda item 137 [A/39/785] and take a decision on the draft decision entitled "Draft standard rules of procedure for United Nations conferences", recommended by the Committee in paragraph 5 of its report. The Committee adopted the draft decision by consensus. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same? The draft decision was adopted (decision 39/419). The meeting rose at 11 p.m. NOTES 'United Nation!', Treaty Series. vol. 75, No. 972. 2Ibid.• vol. B25, No. 17512. 3The delegation ofEthiopia subsequently informed the Secretat':' iat that it had intended to vote in favour of the twenty-siXth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution. . ·The delegation ofYemen subsequently informed the Secretariat that it had intended to abstain in the vote on paragraph 15 of the draft resolution. sSee United Nations, Treaty Series. vol. 1155, No. 18232, art. 18. 6Resolution 37/10, annex. '7The delegation of Samoa subsequently informed the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution.