United Nations Security Council Resolution 784 – El Salvador
Resolution 784 (1992) or 10 October 1992
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolution 637 (1989) of 27 July 1989,
Recalling also its resolutions 693 (1991) of 20 May 1991, 714 (1991) of30 September 1991 and 729 (1992) of 14 January 1992,
Taking note of the letter from the Secretary-General of 19 October 1992 addressed to the President of the Security Council, in which he announced a delay in the schedule laid down in resolution 729 (1992),
Taking note also of the letter from the Secretary-General of 28 October 1992 addressed to the President of the Security Council, 19 in which he proposed an interim extension of the current mandate of the United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador,
- Approves the proposal of the Secretary-General to extend the current mandate of the United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador for a period ending on 30 November 1992;
2. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the Security Council, between now and that date, recommendations on the period of extension of the mandate, on the mandate itself and on the strength that the Mission will need, taking into account progress already made, in order to verify the implementation of the final phases of the peace process in El Salvador, together with their financial implications;
3. Urges both parties to respect scrupulously and to implement in good faith the commitments assumed by them under the agreements signed on 16 January 1992 at Mexico City and to respond positively to the Secretary-General’s latest proposals to them aimed at overcoming the current difficulties;
4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Adopted unanimously at the 3129th meeting.
Related Posts:
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 888 – El Salvador
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 832 – El Salvador
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 920 – UN…
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 961 – UN…
- RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Müller…
- R (on the application of Sturnham) v The Parole…