A/76/PV.101 General Assembly

The Assembly will hear from the remaining speakers who were unable to take the floor in explanation of vote after the voting during the 99th plenary meeting, held on 2 September. Before giving the floor for explanations of vote or position after adoption, may I remind delegations that explanations are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Guatemala thanks Japan and Sierra Leone for their efforts during the process of negotiating resolution 76/304, which condemns all forms of sexual violence and takes note of effective justice mechanisms that protect and respond to the needs of survivors of this scourge. The Government of Guatemala promotes and upholds the human rights of all its citizens, as well as the commitments emanating from international conventions on the subject, in line with the Political Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala, and does not discriminate on any grounds. Similarly, it acknowledges the right of all people to enjoy their fundamental freedoms, without changing the anthropological basis on which our entire legal framework rests. In that regard and in accordance with the provisions of our Constitution concerning the protection of life from the moment of conception, Guatemala dissociates itself from paragraph 6, as it includes references to sexual and reproductive rights, as well as to safe abortion when those services are permitted by national law, which could be interpreted as abortion practices in contravention of our national legislation. At present, the Government of Guatemala implements a comprehensive care model for women who are victims of violence. It is an institutional coordination system that provides immediate and comprehensive care and discrete, immediate and efficient care to women who have been victims of that scourge.

India attaches great importance to strengthening international cooperation for combating sexual violence and ensuring access to justice, remedies and assistance for the victims and survivors of sexual violence. It is imperative to prevent sexual violence and the culture of impunity and to rehabilitate and reintegrate victims and survivors. In that context, we thank the co-facilitators, Japan and Sierra Leone, for presenting resolution 76/304. We believe that this important subject needs the unanimous support of the General Assembly. Throughout the negotiations, my delegation engaged constructively with the aim of reaching a consensus- based and forward-looking outcome. We appreciate the consensus-based adoption of the resolution. However, the fact that several amendments were put forth and supported by many delegations clearly shows that the final text was not able to bridge the differences and address the concerns of various delegations. Considering the importance my delegation attaches to the topic, we joined the consensus. However, due to the use of phrases and terminology that do not have clear and agreed definitions and given that my delegation is not part of some of the international conventions and instruments mentioned in the text, we are constrained to disassociate ourselves from the second, tenth, eleventh and sixteenth preambular paragraphs and from operative paragraph 6.

My delegation would like to thank the delegations of Japan and Sierra Leone for facilitating resolution 76/304, on international cooperation for access to justice for survivors of sexual violence, and would like to explain its position regarding the text as adopted. My delegation firmly believes that sexual violence is condemnable and that member States must take all the necessary action within their national circumstances and competencies to address it and provide timely and unimpeded justice for the victims and survivors of sexual violence. While we reluctantly joined the consensus on the resolution, we continue to believe that it still has several problematic aspects and was submitted with controversial language, without the proper consultations. We believe that the amendments proposed by Nigeria and supported by many delegations, including mine, would have brought us much closer to the broad consensus to which we all aspired. We regret the fact that they were not included in the text. In that regard, allow me to make the following observations. First, my delegation has always been against instrumentalizing the text and deviating from its original starting point  — that is, survivors of sexual violence. Instead, the resolution is full of references to gender-based violence, which cannot be a substitute for the terms “sexual violence” and “violence against women”. Therefore, my delegation dissociates itself from such terms throughout the text. In the same vein, we disassociate ourselves from the term “multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination”, used in the text. Secondly, the term “intimate partner violence” is a highly controversial one that does not enjoy consensus among Member States, including my country. Therefore, we disassociate ourselves from the reference to it in the sixteenth preambular paragraph. Thirdly, operative paragraph 6 promotes the notion that access to safe abortion is part of promoting human rights. We know that the term “safe abortion” is not internationally agreed upon. Therefore, the adoption of resolution 76/304 cannot be interpreted as creating a new right or new international and legally binding obligations. Therefore, my delegation disassociates itself from operative paragraph 6. Fourthly, my delegation disassociates itself from the consensus on the reference to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in both the ninth and tenth preambular paragraphs, as Syria is not a signatory to the Rome Statute of the ICC. To sum it up, consensus is not, by any means, equivalent to unanimity.

We thank the delegations of Sierra Leone and Japan for introducing resolution 76/304. Belarus wholeheartedly advocates the strengthening of international cooperation in the area of criminal justice and the provision of timely and unimpeded access to justice, as well as effective legal assistance, to all victims of sexual violence. At the same time, regrettably, the delegation of Belarus cannot support the full text of the resolution. Despite the clear lack of consensus, the text contains wording that is not universally supported. It also contains controversial language. That shifts the focus of the document from the legal aspects of the issue to concepts that are not internationally agreed upon. In that regard, Belarus was pleased to co-sponsor the amendments presented by the delegation of Nigeria to ensure the adoption of a more balanced text that is acceptable to all States and not detrimental to the main objectives of the resolution. We regret the fact that the General Assembly was unable to adopt the amendments. Given the fact that the text still contains problematic terminology, and in the light of the non-constructive approaches that guided the sponsors of the resolution during negotiations, while fully supporting the objectives of the resolution, the delegation of Belarus is compelled to disassociate itself from the consensus on the text. Belarus shall interpret the text of the resolution in line with its national legislation and international legal obligations. We trust that, under their mandates, the United Nations and other international and regional organizations will also adhere to internationally agreed upon parameters. We again call upon our partners to understand and respect the positions of all Member States in order to achieve unity and consensus and avoid terminology in international documents that sows division in the General Assembly.

My delegation takes the floor to explain its position after the adoption of resolution 76/304. My delegation condemns all forms of sexual violence in all situations, especially in vulnerable situations, such as conflict and post-conflict settings and humanitarian settings, as well as during and in the aftermath of natural disasters and emergencies. Similarly, all acts of violence in all its forms are condemnable and require effective remedial action. There is the need to ensure full access to non-discriminatory and comprehensive support and services to victims and survivors, as well as to provide justice, redress and just and effective remedies and assistance for the victims and survivors of all forms of violence. Member States have the obligation, at all levels, to promote, protect and respect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including of all women and girls, and they must exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate, prosecute and hold to account the perpetrators of all forms of violence. We thank the delegations of Japan and Sierra Leone for presenting resolution 76/304, on a very important and critical issue. We joined the consensus for that same reason. However, we note with regret that, despite the lack of agreement, non-consensus- based language and controversial terms, which were not agreed upon, were retained in certain paragraphs of the resolution. Those terms are also not recognized by the domestic laws of Pakistan. We would also like to stress that the negotiation process should be inclusive and consensus-based and should not create reservations for participating delegations. Let me reiterate that we attach high importance to, and fully support the overarching objectives of, the resolution. However, my delegation maintains its position and expresses its concerns about certain language contained in the resolution, including “safe abortion”, “sexual and reproductive rights”, “intimate partner violence” and “gender-based violence”. We disassociate ourselves from the eighth and sixteenth preambular paragraphs and operative paragraphs 2 (a) and 6. For the same reason, my delegation voted in favour of the proposed amendments to those paragraphs.

The delegation of the Republic of the Sudan would like to thank Sierra Leone and Japan for submitting draft resolution A/76/L.80, entitled “International cooperation for access to justice, remedies and assistance for survivors of sexual violence”, which was adopted by consensus by the General Assembly (resolution 76/304). We would like to take this opportunity to explain our position regarding the voting on the four draft amendments proposed by Nigeria  — on the eighth and sixteenth preambular paragraphs and on operative paragraphs 2 (a) and 6 of the resolution. The Republic of the Sudan attaches the utmost importance to issues related to women, the advancement of women’s rights and their participation in society at all levels. My country demonstrates great care and concern and spares no effort to address and eliminate sexual violence against women and girls, specifically in regions that are affected by conflict. My delegation paid close attention to the resolution under discussion for many reasons, including its content. However, as negotiations continued, we recognized a drift from the original goal of the resolution. Many concepts and notions, as well as wording and terminology, that were still controversial and not agreed upon by the General Assembly, were included in the draft resolution. My country’s delegation reiterates its firm position on respecting cultural and social values, as well as the characteristics that distinguish countries from each other. We stress the importance of respecting the sovereignty of countries and non-interference in their national laws and legislation. Therefore, my country’s delegation voted in favour of the draft amendments proposed by Nigeria. We believe that those amendments helped to bring balance to the text so that it could be accepted and agreed upon by all parties. Given that those amendments were not included in the final text, the Sudan would like to express its reservations on the controversial language in the eighth and sixteenth preambular paragraphs as well as operative paragraph 2 (a). We also disassociate ourselves from operative paragraph 6.

Egypt would again like to thank Sierra Leone and Japan for presenting resolution 76/304, on international cooperation for access to justice, remedies and assistance for survivors of sexual violence. We reiterated our support to Sierra Leone’s initiative since the introduction of this agenda item in the General Assembly last September. Egypt joined the consensus on the resolution because of the importance of the topic it addresses. We believe that the text of the resolution could have been improved had the content of the text been more linked to the topic of the resolution and had the legal accuracy of its provisions been checked, including by considering the inclusion of the term “victims” in the agenda item and title of the resolution. While we understand that the co-facilitators of the resolution were on a mission to defend a noble cause, that cannot justify the lack of transparency and fairness in the negotiation process. We would have preferred if negotiations had been carried out in a more professional manner and in a more professional environment and able to guide delegations to accurate and timely information. Those defects in the process had a negative impact on the outcome, which does not do justice to the cause of the victims and survivors of sexual violence. We note with concern that programme budget implications around the resolution were used as a bargaining chip in exchange for including controversial language in the final text. Such a method is unprecedented and threatens the principle of common ownership of all States Members of the United Nations. Egypt disassociates itself from the eighth, sixteenth and twenty-third preambular paragraphs and operative paragraphs 2 and 6. To clear up any future confusion and given the challenging negotiations process, we do not consider the language contained in the resolution to be consensus-based or agreed upon. In conclusion, Egypt will continue supporting international or national efforts to ensure access to justice, remedies and assistance for victims and survivors of sexual violence.

At the outset, I would like to thank the delegations of Sierra Leone and Japan for conducting the negotiations on resolution 76/304, entitled “International cooperation for access to justice, remedies and assistance for survivors of sexual violence”. We also appreciate the efforts made during the consultations on the resolution. Algeria believes in the vital importance of eradicating discrimination against women and girls, ensuring equality in all aspects of their lives and countering violence and other practices that are harmful to them in order to reach fair and impartial judiciary. Empowering women and girls and ensuring their human rights are central and urgent for us. While my country’s delegation joined consensus on the resolution, we regret that it did not include the amendments introduced by the Nigerian delegation, of which we voted in favour. Those amendments would have added balance to the text as a whole because they reflect the positions stressed by many countries since the start of the negotiations on resolution 76/304. Proceeding from our belief in the need to take into consideration the historical, cultural and religious backgrounds of each country, my delegation would like to express its reservations about some of the concepts contained in certain paragraphs of the resolution, especially the controversial concepts on which there is no consensus, including “multiple intersecting forms of discrimination” and “intimate partner violence”, which can be interpreted in different ways. We also believe, for example, that “sexual and gender-based violence” refers only to violence against girls, women, boys and men. We disassociate ourselves from other interpretations of concepts that do not enjoy international consensus. With regard to the term “safe abortion”, my delegation believes that abortion should in no way be promoted as a means of family planning. We are of the view that international agencies should not interfere in domestic abortion policies, which, as agreed upon, are the prerogative of States through their relevant institutions. In addition, for us the concept “sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights” refers exclusively to health care, in line with our national legislation.

Brazil would like to thank Japan and Sierra Leone for their efforts as co-facilitators of resolution 76/304, on international cooperation on access to justice, remedies and assistance for survivors of sexual violence. Combating sexual violence is a key priority for the Government of Brazil. Our current Administration has adopted a substantial body of laws to prevent, combat and mitigate the impact of sexual violence, as well as provide redress to women victims. Over the past four years, the Ministry of Women, Family and Human Rights has developed comprehensive policies and programmes to address the causes of sexual violence and support victims. Our Government recognizes that the impacts of sexual violence can be extensive and multifaceted, leaving long-standing scars on victims and their families, as well as communities at large. Sexual violence constitutes a threat to the right of life, directly affects the physical and mental health of the victims and undermines human dignity and freedom from fear. We understand that it is a complex issue that brings to the fore divisive questions related to stigma, sexual and reproductive health and the right to privacy, as well as law enforcement and the imperative need to prevent re-victimization. In view of Brazil’s unwavering commitment to combating sexual violence, we supported the adoption of resolution 76/304. Nevertheless, we believe that there are important aspects in the text that do not belong there and would be better addressed by domestic constituencies. In particular, Brazil did not support the references to reproductive rights and abortion contained in the resolution and called for their deletion from the text. The Government of Brazil would therefore like to clarify that the resolution should not be interpreted in any way as condoning or supporting abortion as a method of family planning. Abortion is illegal in Brazil, except in specific cases prescribed by law or a high court decision, such as pregnancy resulting from rape. While recognizing the merit of international cooperation in combating sexual violence, we believe it is important to maintain national prerogatives to define the appropriate policies on sexual and reproductive health, in accordance with domestic law and practices.

My country’s delegation is aware of the high importance of resolution 76/304, entitled “International cooperation on access to justice, remedies and assistance for survivors of sexual violence”. We would like to thank the delegations of Sierra Leone and Japan for presenting the resolution and facilitating the informal consultations on it. We stress that the issue of supporting victims of sexual violence, as well as providing them with redress and enabling their recourse to fair and impartial judiciary, is a fundamental principle of Libya’s justice system. For that reason, among others, my delegation joined the consensus in adopting the resolution as a whole. However, as we previously expressed during the negotiations on the resolution, my delegation cannot accept the controversial concepts contained in some of the paragraphs, which weaken the value of the resolution and, as we all know, are in conflict with the national legislation in force and the religious and cultural specificities of many countries, including my own country, Libya. Those concepts include so-called “multiple intersecting forms of discrimination” and “intimate partner violence”, as well as “sexual and gender-based violence”, which we interpret only in terms of violence against women, girls, men and boys. We only accept the interpretation of the term “sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights” as it pertains to health care services. We also categorically reject the reference to and promotion of safe abortion because it contradicts the right to life, which is the basis of all human rights. My delegation therefore supported the four draft amendments that were introduced prior to the adoption of the resolution and voted against operative paragraph 6. In that context, my delegation expresses its reservations on the text included in the eighth and sixteenth preambular paragraphs and in operative paragraphs 2 (a) and 6, which we do not consider to be consensus language.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement in explanation of position after the adoption of resolution 76/304. We would like to thank the delegations of Sierra Leone and Japan for their efforts during the negotiations on the resolution, entitled “International cooperation for access to justice, remedies and assistance for survivors of sexual violence”. My country joined the consensus proceeding from our belief in the need for concerted efforts and international cooperation in order to ensure justice, equity, remedies and assistance for survivors of sexual violence, as well as developing their human capabilities with full respect for their human rights. In addition, we would like to clarify the following points about some elements of the resolution as adopted. Operative paragraph 6 includes language on safe abortion as a necessary element of ensuring human rights. We strongly stress that abortion is not a human right. That is why we disassociate ourselves from the entire paragraph. We reiterate that, as agreed in paragraph 8.25 of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, abortion is not an international human rights issue but is the exclusive competence of national authorities, with Governments and the international community having a duty to assist mothers to avoid abortion and to provide them with health care and social support before and after the birth of their children. Regarding the outcome documents of the various review conferences mentioned in operative paragraph 6, we understand that those references refer only to the outcomes adopted by the General Assembly. There were also calls to provide support for “sexual and reproductive health-care services” and “sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights” in the seventeenth and eighteenth preambular paragraphs as well as operative paragraphs 2 (b) and 6. Those two terms should be understood only as referring to health-care and education programmes approved by the competent authorities within Member States, as agreed in the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development. We regret that the non-consensus terms “multiple intersecting forms of discrimination” in the eighth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 2 (a), and the term “intimate partner violence” in the sixteenth preambular paragraph, which are open for misinterpretation, were included in the resolution. We do not agree with any interpretation of those terms that has not garnered international consensus or is not recognized in our national laws and policies. My country’s delegation would also like to stress that we understand the resolution’s use of the term “gender” as it appears in annex 4 of the report of the Fourth World Conference on Women, in which it refers only to the genders of “male” or “female”, “man” or “woman” in the context of society and has no other meaning beyond that.

My delegation would like to thank our dear brother country Sierra Leone for its leadership in adopting resolution 76/304, a very important resolution that should to have enjoyed wider support across the Member States. Unfortunately, that was not to be. Aside from its procedural concerns, the resolution contains highly problematic and controversial language. My delegation was unable to join the consensus on the resolution, whose moderate shift in several elements and paragraphs is contrary to our laws and past General Assembly agreements. Today the many amendments we proposed were rejected with the same inflexibility shown to us by the resolution’s main sponsors during the negotiation process. In three full readings of the resolution, we never agreed to a single paragraph by consensus. That is not how we conduct negotiations in the Assembly. We proposed minimal amendments based on the positions we made known throughout the negotiations. We did that in a spirit of compromise in order to try to reach consensus. But the sponsors of the resolution would not entertain any proposals throughout the process. We urge them to do better in the future and to negotiate with other delegations in a spirit of cooperation and dialogue. However, I would like to underscore the importance of the resolution, which is entitled “International cooperation on access to justice, remedies and assistance for survivors of sexual violence”. My delegation recognizes the fact that most survivors of sexual violence suffer from trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder, and therefore need psychosocial support and comprehensive health care. We therefore welcome the resolution in principle, owing to our own personal experience as a country. To underline the importance of that, Nigeria became a member of the core group at its inception. However, we had to withdraw from the core group when some members of the group hijacked the process and introduced controversial elements through questionable and opaque processes. Unfortunately, what played out in the core group also played out during the intergovernmental negotiations, if not worse. There was an outright display of contempt for reason and decency. Some delegations were unduly intimidated, coerced and, regrettably, pressured. It is important to highlight and put on record that the negotiations leading to the present resolution were deeply flawed. Not a single paragraph was agreed by consensus. We are disappointed with the co-facilitators, who did not conduct the negotiations in good faith. Rather, they displayed outright disregard for the concerns and sensitivity of delegations. The resolution does not address essential elements required for such an important resolution, such as an emphasis on ending impunity and ensuring development assistance, technical assistance and support, as well as comprehensive health care and psychosocial support. We believe it is essential for the Assembly to adopt a principled, unified and objective position when it comes to the critical issue at hand — one that, given the importance of the matter we are discussing, is devoid of non-agreed language, political motivations and cultural sensitivities. We regret that the main sponsors insisted on undermining an important resolution by employing and introducing controversial language with no basis in international human rights law and in an irrelevant context. During the consultation process, many Member States made several requests and submissions to keep the language in resolution consensus-based and agreed on, which would have enabled many delegations to join the consensus on the resolution. That did not happen. In addition, as our cause has been ignored, my delegation would like to clarify the following points. We dissociate ourselves from operative paragraph six, which promotes access to safe abortion as an element of human rights. That is incorrect as a matter of international human rights law. Abortion is not an agreed human rights law. We should not be creating new rights in international law. In my country, Nigeria, abortion is illegal, with exceptions permitted only by medical personnel. Member States agreed that abortion is a subject to be dealt with exclusively in national legislation in paragraph 8.25 of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development. We emphasize that the Programme of Action also called on Member States and the United Nations system to help mothers refrain from abortion by providing them with alternatives, especially maternal health and social support. The language about access to sexual and reproductive health care services and sexual and reproductive health and political rights in the seventeenth and eighteenth preambular paragraphs and in operative paragraphs 2 (b) and 6 is routinely misinterpreted by donors and partners, including the United Nations system. When United Nations agencies and the Secretariat promote abortion, comprehensive sexual education, homosexuality and other controversial social policies, they are acting on according to their biases and beyond their mandates. We also want to clarify that other documents from review conferences, as referred to in operative paragraph six, must be interpreted only as referring to outcomes adopted by the General Assembly. We also dissociate ourselves from the references to “multiple intersecting forms of discrimination” in the eighth preambular paragraph and in operative paragraphs 2 (a) and 6, as well as the use of the phrase “intimate partner violence” in the sixteenth preambular paragraph. Those terms are defined by agencies and other international agencies as including categories and ideas that are not recognized in Nigeria’s domestic laws. My delegation also reaffirms that the word “gender”, which is mentioned throughout the resolution, must be interpreted in the light of annex four of the report of the Fourth World Conference on Women and article three of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It has no meaning beyond the two sexes, male and female, in the context of society. We wish to reaffirm that our opposition to the four paragraphs of the resolution and all the controversial elements is consistent with our trust in foreign policy and in defence of our values, domestic laws and sovereignty.

Malaysia reiterates its unwavering support for ensuring that victims and survivors of sexual violence are accorded proper access to justice, remedies and assistance. We strongly condemn acts of sexual violence and insist that the perpetrators of such heinous acts must be held accountable. We welcome the presentation of resolution 76/304, a stand- alone resolution on that important topic. The adoption of the text as a whole, without a vote, is a sign of the international community’s shared recognition of the need to address sexual violence. The text, however, was far from ideal. We regret that the resolution includes divisive and contentious terms that are inconsistent with the positions of many countries, including Malaysia. Those concerns are not new. They were repeatedly stressed throughout the negotiations  — clearly to no avail. While we want to wholeheartedly support a resolution on providing victims and survivors of sexual violence with proper access to justice, remedies and assistance, the incorporation of problematic terms in the text — by choice — prevents my delegation from doing so. In that regard, Malaysia disassociates itself from the terms “multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination”, “diverse situations and conditions” and “the right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality”, as contained in the eighth preambular paragraph and operative paragraphs 2 (a), 2 (k) and 6 of the text. Let it be clear that, despite the consensus adoption of the text as a whole, Malaysia does not recognize those terms as agreed language. All hope is not lost with today’s resolution. We will have another chance to work towards a consensus text when the resolution is next presented again during the General Assembly’s seventy-ninth session. We sincerely hope that the next round of consultations will be conducted in a genuinely inclusive manner, while avoiding the use of controversial terminology, in order for us to produce a truly balanced consensus text. That is the least that the co-facilitators and wider the membership can do for the victims and survivors of sexual violence.

I take the floor to deliver Ethiopia’s explanation of position on resolution 76/304, adopted last week under agenda item 133 (see A/76/PV.99). Together with several other delegations, the Ethiopian delegation participated in good faith throughout the negotiations on the resolution. We provided input to help find consensus on some of the controversial language. Unfortunately, we were unable to achieve consensus, mainly owing to a lack of openness to listen to and accommodate the concerns of delegations. We believe that the negotiation process could have been inclusive and not involved the imposition of non-consensus language. The positions of all Members of the United Nations must be respected. That is the only way we can move forward with the business of multilateralism. Every process must aim for consensus, be inclusive and result in a focused outcome. Every Member of the United Nations is aware of, and has a right to adopt positions on, issues depending on their national context. The role of the facilitators is to assist in bridging those positions and create workable middle ground. As such, my delegation is compelled to disassociate itself, first, from the reference to “multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination” in the eighth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 2 (a) and, secondly, from the reference to “intimate partner violence” in the sixteenth preambular paragraph. Concerning the reference to “sexual and reproductive health services and reproductive rights”, Ethiopia understands that formulation to mean access to health-care services in order to ensure the health and well-being of mothers, newborns, children and young people by providing treatment and improving nutrition, as well as access to family planning, counselling and information on sexually transmitted diseases. Regarding the use of the term “gender” throughout the resolution, my delegation understands it to refer to the male or female sex. Finally, Ethiopia is not a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the International Criminal Court or its jurisdiction and the reference made to it in the resolution 76/304.

Japan voted against the four draft amendments presented by the delegation of Nigeria on resolution 76/304, since the relevant paragraphs to which those amendments were proposed are based on language that was adopted by consensus or by a vote in past resolutions. I thank all the delegations that supported the original language in the resolution, which was, in my view, a product of an inclusive and transparent negotiation process carried out in good faith for more than five months. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the delegations that joined the consensus in adopting the first-ever resolution on international cooperation for access to justice, remedies and assistance for survivors of sexual violence. I also thank those delegations that had some issues with the text but did not ask for a vote for the sake of a consensus adoption. Lastly, with regard to the somewhat politicized references to my country by two delegations during the debate and in explanation of position last Friday (see A/76/PV.99), I will not repeat the well-known stance of Japan or remind the delegations about the established facts of history in order to correct the false allegations. I simply want to emphasize that Japan decided to contribute to this process in the light of its responsibility to continue to inherit the past in all humbleness and pass it on to the future. I trust that practice is established in this Hall.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of position after adoption. The exercise of the right of reply has been requested. May I remind members that statements in the exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and five minutes for the second intervention and should be made by delegations from their seats. I give the floor to the representative of China.

China would like to exercise its right of reply in response to the statement made by the representative of Japan. It is outrageous that the representative of Japan has not only failed to reflect on those criminal acts but has also denied, distorted and even glorified its history of aggression and downplayed and evaded its historical responsibility. Japan has so far failed to acknowledge the State’s responsibility with regard to the issue of comfort women. I would like to tell a true story. Chen Liancun, a 96-year-old woman of the Li ethnic group in Hainan was a victim of the Japanese comfort-women system. When she was 13 years old, as she was tending to her cattle, she was raped by three Japanese soldiers at gunpoint. When she was 16, Japanese soldiers came into her village, took her away by force and placed her in the so-called logistics service team. The service team was made up of demure young girls taken from the surrounding villages, who did all the chores, including laundry and cooking, for the Japanese soldiers during the day. At night, they were forced to provide sexual services to Japanese soldiers. Japanese soldiers have become a lifelong source of shame for Chen Liancun. Every time she talked about Japan, she would be nerveous, she would keep weeping, or even loudly wail. On the 30 June 2021, at the age of 96, Chen Liancun passed away without an apology from Japan. We once again urge Japan to effectively confront and deeply reflect on its history, adopt an honest and responsible approach to properly address the issue of the forced recruitment of comfort women and other issues in its history and take concrete actions to win the trust of its Asian neighbours and the international community.

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 133?