text: Yugoslavia (16th). 100. The Commission also heard statements by the Observers for: Algeria (13th), Egypt (13th), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (14th), Sudan (14th), Syrian Arab Republic (11th), Tunisia (13th), United Republic of Tanzania (14th), Yemen (15th). 101. A statement was also made by the Observer for the Organization of African Unity (14th). 102. A statement was also made by the World Union for Progressive Judaism (11th), a non-governmental organization. 103. At its 42nd meeting, on 27 February 1990, the Commission took up consideration of the draft resolutions submitted under item 6. 104. On 16 February 1990, a draft resolution (E/CN.4/1990/L.21) was submitted by Algeria*, Bangladesh*, Cuba, Egypt*, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Iraq, Kenya*, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya*, Madagascar, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan*, Tunisia*, the United Republic of Tanzania* and Zimbabwe*. 105. On 21 February 1990, the draft resolution was re-issued, for a technical reason, as document E/CN.4/1990/L.21/Rev.l. -190-106. At the 42nd meeting, on 27 February 1990, the representative of Egypt introduced draft resolution E/CN.4/1990/L.21/Rev.l. Nicaragua* and the Syrian Arab Republic* subsequently joined the sponsors. 107. At the same meeting, the attention of the Commission was drawn to an estimate of the administrative and programme budget implications (E/CN.4/1990/L.107) 1/ of draft resolution E/CN.4/1990/L.21/Rev.l. 108. At the request of the representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a roll-call vote was taken on draft resolution E/CN.4/1990/L.21/Rev.l. The draft resolution was adopted by 31 votes to 8, with 4 abstentions. The voting was as follows: In favour; Argentina, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Hungary, India, Iraq, Madagascar, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Venezuela, Yugoslavia. Against: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Federal Republic of,
analysis: This text appears to be related to a United Nations Commission on Human Rights meeting, discussing draft resolutions on a specific topic. The text mentions several countries and organizations, and the voting outcome suggests that the topic is related to human rights. Given the context, it is likely that the topic is related to human rights and international relations.