text: stan) concluded by saying that, since the self-styled defenders of human rights and opponents of terror­ ism had, in fact, committed unpardonable crimes in violation of all international norms and principles, his delegation categorically rejected the draft deci­ sion before the Council, which it considered devoid of any validity whatsoever. 39. The PRESIDENT said that the Second (Social) Committee had adopted draft decision IV by a recorded vote of 36 to 7, with 5 abstentions. A recorded vote was taken on draft decision IV. In favour: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Bel­ gium, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Morocco, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Venezuela. Against: Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, German Democratic Republic, India, Poland, Roma­ nia, Syrian Arab Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Abstaining: Finland, Iraq, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zimbabwe. Draft decision IV was adopted by 3 7 votes to 7, with 7 abstentions (decision 1986/136). DRAFT DECISION V 40. The PRESIDENT said that draft decision V had been adopted in the Second (Social) Committee by a recorded vote of 24 to 7, with 13 abstentions. A recorded vote was taken on draft decision V. DRAFT DECISIONS VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI AND XII Draft decisions VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI and XII were adopted (decisions 1986/138, 1986/139, 1986/140, 1986/141, 1986/142, 1986/143 and 1986/144). DRAFT DECISION XIII 41. The PRESIDENT said that draft decision XIII had been adopted in the Second (Social) Committee by a recorded vote of 32 to 7, with 6 abstentions. A recorded vote was taken on draft decision XIII. In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Byelorus­
analysis: The text appears to be a report on a meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council, discussing draft decisions and voting results. The language used is formal and diplomatic, indicating a focus on international relations and human rights. The content does not seem to relate to specific economic or social issues, but rather to the Council's decisions and actions.