1. Speakers on video-1 - Broadcast cameras:
   
   - Simon Manley, British Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva 
   - Mr. Hassan Hamid Hassan, Permanent Representative of Sudan to the UN Office at Geneva  
   
   2. Video-2 - Automatic cameras:
   
   - Ambassador Omar Zniber, President of the Human Rights Council, calling the vote 
   - Vote and results on the board for the adoption of the resolution A/HRC/57/L.22 “Responding to the human rights and humanitarian crisis caused by the ongoing armed conflict in the Sudan” at the Human Rights Council, room XX of the Palais des Nations in Geneva.

The UN Human Rights Council in Geneva just adopted a resolution extending mandate of the independent international fact-finding mission (FFM) for the Sudan for one year.

The resolution was introduced by the UK, also on behalf of Germany, Norway and the USA.

United Kingdom: The situation in Sudan today is appalling. Reference to various human rights violations affecting the population and made by both parties. Would prefer not to have to present this text, but the situation requires the Council’s attention. The people in Sudan needs attention and accountability. The FFM is the only independent and impartial mechanism monitoring the situation as the national mechanism is neither independent, not impartial. Regrets that it would not be possible to achieve consensus with the delegation of Sudan. The government of Sudan may be against the text but the people of Sudan are in favor of it.

Sudan: Referenced the priorities of Sudan for human rights and justice. Referenced the country office of OHCHR and the recent visit of the Expert in July. So why do the main sponsors of this text still want to extend this FFM? The national mechanism presented several reports already. Where is the principle of complementarity here? The national commission of enquiry is the competent one. We should not impose an external mechanism on Sudan. The text is unfair regarding the reality in Sudan and the respective responsibilities. How can a Council resolution use this unjust approach? How can it equate a national army with rebels? Totally rejects this text. Not correct to say that the main sponsors accommodated comments made. The text is only a selection of paragraphs that we cannot accept. The HRC should stop these double standards. We call for a vote and call on all to vote no.

Resolution adopted by 23 in favour, 12 against and 12 abstentions.