UNITED NATIONS - Vote on the moratorium: 133 in favour, 33 against and 16 abstentions

November 13, 2026 - UNITED NATIONS. Vote on the ‘Moratorium on the use of the death penalty’

Third Committee Approves 10 Draft Resolutions, Divides over Death Penalty, Extrajudicial Executions amid Heated Exchanges between Cuba, United States

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) today approved 10 draft resolutions on the death penalty, extrajudicial executions and other human rights issues, amid divisions over national sovereignty and protection of vulnerable groups.

‘No System Is Immune to Error’, Delegate Warns as Committee Backs Moratorium on Death Penalty, Approves Sovereignty Amendment

Approving “Moratorium on the use of the death penalty” (document A/C.3/81/L.43), as orally revised and amended, by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to 33 against, with 16 abstentions. By the text, the Assembly would call on States to establish a moratorium on the death penalty with a view to abolishing it.

Introducing the draft on behalf of the Inter-Regional Task Force on the Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty, Mexico’s representative stressed the importance of protecting the right to life and preventing “irreversible miscarriages of justice”. Reported executions have increased by almost 80 per cent compared with 2024, concentrated in a small number of States, she said.

“No system is immune to error,” she warned, emphasizing that “a moratorium offers an opportunity to strengthen safeguards and prevent irreversible loss of life”.

Before adopting the draft, the Committee approved an amendment (document A/C.3/81/L.50), introduced by Singapore, by 97 votes in favour to 63 against, with 16 abstentions. It reaffirmed “the sovereign right of all countries to develop their own legal systems, including determining appropriate legal penalties, in accordance with their international law obligations”.

“All countries have the sovereign right to develop their own legal systems,” Singapore’s delegate declared, warning against “imposing a consensus where there is none”. Mexico’s representative regretted the amendment, noting that the original draft already included language on sovereignty.

Brazil’s delegate, supporting the resolution, described capital punishment as “a cruel and inhumane form of punishment that disproportionately affects the most marginalized members of society”. Australia’s representative warned that it is sometimes applied beyond the most serious crimes, including for drug offences, exercising freedom of expression or “loving the wrong person”.

Lebanon’s delegate highlighted her country’s formal abolition of capital punishment in August 2026 following a 22-year moratorium, saying it “demonstrates that a moratorium can serve as an effective first step toward abolition”.

Egypt’s representative, opposing the text, argued that capital punishment serves as a deterrent against serious crimes that “threaten the lives and security of societies”. Singapore’s delegate pointed to provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permitting capital punishment, while the United States representative stressed the need for fair trials and safeguards against undue suffering.

Committee Rejects Amendments Seeking to Remove References to Sexual Orientation, International Criminal Court from Extrajudicial Executions Text
In another closely watched action, the Committee approved “Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” (document A/C.3/81/L.37/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 131 in favour to none against, with 47 abstentions, after rejecting three amendments.

Egypt’s representative introduced the first amendment (document A/C.3/81/L.53), seeking to replace explicit references to “sexual orientation or gender identity” with “any other considerations that make them at heightened risk of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions”. He described the existing terminology as controversial and non-consensual, arguing that it had prevented agreement on the draft’s central objective.

Finland’s representative, introducing the resolution on behalf of the Nordic countries, defended the references, emphasizing that they identify groups particularly vulnerable to unlawful killings. “Certain groups of individuals are more likely than others to become victims of illegal killings. They are also more likely to be victims of impunity,” he said.

Several delegations warned that removing the wording could make such violence invisible and increase impunity.

The amendment was rejected by 69 votes in favour to 74 against, with 24 abstentions.

The Russian Federation introduced two further amendments (documents A/C.3/81/L.65 and A/C.3/81/L.66), seeking to delete a reference to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and an operative paragraph, respectively. Its representative cited a “crisis of trust” in the Court and questioned the concept of responsibility to protect, warning against interference in State sovereignty.

Both amendments were rejected, each receiving 22 votes in favour and 81 against, with 48 and 47 abstentions, respectively.

By the approved resolution, the Assembly would condemn extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions worldwide, including killings committed by non-State actors.

[…]

In other action, the Committee approved the following drafts:

“Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights” (document A/C.3/81/L.29) was approved by a recorded vote of 176 in favour, 3 against (Argentina, Israel, United States) with 3 abstentions (Colombia, Paraguay, Ukraine).

[…]

“Human rights and unilateral coercive measures” (document A/C.3/81/L.30) was approved by a recorded vote of 117 in favour to 56 against, with 4 abstentions (Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Peru).

[…]

Promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of all human rights by all” (document A/C.3/81/L.32) was approved by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 54 against, with 3 abstentions (Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay).

“Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order” (document A/C.3/81/L.33) was approved by a recorded vote of 119 in favour to 55 against, with 8 abstentions (Armenia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru).

[…]