CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 48
The Commission considered Article 13 and related amendments. Sr. Accioly (Brazil) introduced and spoke in favor of his Delegation’s amendment (CP(Gen)Doc 1 E 3) (for full text of his remarks see CP(IT/P)Doc 61).70 It was opposed by the Yugoslav Delegate. Senator Connally submitted the United States proposal to Article 13 (paragraph 4) designed to secure for persons within ceded territories equality of treatment as well as the enjoyment of human rights and the fundamental freedoms. The Senator spoke, explaining the general principles involved which had motivated the United States Delegation in making this proposal. Mr. Hodgson (Australia) supported the [Page 505] United States Delegate but declared that his amendment did not go far enough in providing for the enforcement of these guarantees in the various states receiving Italian territories. He consequently supported the Australian amendment to Article 13 (CP (Gen) Doc 1 B 4), the first paragraph of which was identical with the United States proposal but contained an additional paragraph providing for enforcement of the obligations assumed thereunder.71 M. Couve de Murville (France) expressed his delegation’s willingness to accept the United States proposal if slightly modified. Senator Connally accepted this drafting change on the assumption that it did not affect the substance of the proposal. So did Mr. Hodgson for the relative part of the Australian amendment which as modified reads as follows:
“The State to which the territory is transferred shall secure to all persons within the territory, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, the enjoyment of human rights and of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, of press and publication, of religious worship, of political opinion and of public meeting.”
The representatives of Yugoslavia, Poland, and the Soviet Union spoke against the United States proposal and Australian amendment, while the representative of Belgium supported them.
The representative of Greece introduced and spoke in favor of his Delegation’s amendment (CP(Gen)Doc 1 J 2) which would exclude from Greek citizenship Italians who emigrated to the Dodecanese after 1912 and under certain other conditions. M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) supported this amendment, while M. Vyshinsky opposed it. M. Bebler submitted to the Commission his Delegation’s amendments to Article 13 (CP (Gen) Doc 1 U 7 and 8) with a defense of each Section thereof. M. Vyshinsky spoke in favor of the Yugoslav amendments.
The Chairman then put all amendments to Article 13 to the vote with the following results:
- 1.
- The first part of the Australian amendment (identical with the U.S. proposal) adopted by 14 votes to 6.
- 2.
- The second part of the Australian amendment rejected by 6 votes to 14.
- 3.
- All three parts of the Brazilian amendment were rejected by large majorities.
- 4.
- The Greek amendment was rejected by 3 votes to 17.
- 5.
- That part of the Yugoslav amendment (Doc 1 U 7) to change the date of residence mentioned in Article 13 (1) from 1940 to 1936 [Page 506] was rejected by 7 votes to 12; while the provision relating to exclusion of war criminals from Yugoslav citizenship (Sec. a of Doc 1 U 7) was unanimously adopted by the Commission in the following modified form: “Persons who have been listed by the Inter-Allied War Criminals Commission in London to be war criminals or sentenced as such”.
- 6.
- Section (b) of the Yugoslav amendment (Doc 1 U 7) received a tie vote (8 to 8 with 4 abstentions) and, under Article 76 of the United Nations Rules of Procedure, was postponed to receive a second vote within 48 hours. In view of the late hour (9 p.m.) the remaining section (c) of this amendment as well as the second Yugoslav amendment (Doc 1 U 8) was held over for consideration and voting at the next meeting.