THE COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION HOLDS AN INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH STATES PARTIES

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this afternoon held a discussion with States parties on improving dialogue between the Committee and States parties and engagement with the Committee after reporting.

During the discussion, Committee Members said the Committee valued the dialogue with States parties, which should take place more often. This helped the work of the Committee to be more efficient and effective. New activities had been added for which additional resources were needed. The main objective of Committee proceedings was to have an exchange with and increase understanding between the Committee and States parties. The dialogue took place over two days with a view to striking a balance in the interventions between the State party and Committee Members. Afterwards, recommendations and observations were submitted by the Committee on the State party’s implementation of the Convention. The Committee issued the State party a list of themes the Committee would like to discuss during the session. The Committee sought to make use of technology, such as video-conferencing, and it hoped to find a way to use this technology more and more in the reporting context. Regarding concluding observations, in 2004 the Committee inaugurated its procedure to follow-up on recommendations and observations. The follow-up procedure allowed States to show their commitment to the Committee by accepting a mechanism for cooperation and implementing recommendations. For critics, the mechanism allowed them recourse to a Committee of independent experts after exhausting other measures.

States parties said they found the work of the treaty bodies and the dialogue involved to be useful and important. States parties found that the information submitted to the Universal Periodic Review was similar. Was information shared between human rights mechanisms? State parties recognized the issue of limited resources. Any alternative approaches for the reporting process would be welcome.
Also, more focused questions would be useful, creating the space for follow-up questions. There was scope to reduce the length of the hearing, by avoiding the duplication of questions. Delegations asked the opinion of the Committee regarding the expertise of the Committee covering xenophobia and complaints related thereto.

Bahamas, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Burkina Faso, Romania, Switzerland, Norway, Brazil, Georgia, Russian Federation, Egypt, South Africa, and Australia took the floor during the informal meeting.

This meeting concluded the public segment of the seventy-ninth session of the Committee of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Over the next week the Committee will hold a series of closed meeting to prepare its recommendations in follow up to the periodic state reports presented during the seventy-ninth session.

Committee Members

ANWAR KEMAL, Committee Chairperson, in opening remarks, said the Committee valued the dialogue with States parties and it should take place more often. This helped the work of the Committee to be more efficient and effective. It also helped the Committee to advance the goals of the Convention. Since the Committee last met with States parties four years ago, an economic crisis had emerged which lessened support for vulnerable people worldwide. Work of the treaty body system had grown relentlessly in recent years. The High Commissioner for Human Rights had been engaged with treaty bodies to streamline and strengthen the treaty body system. The Committee on the Convention of the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had succeeded in streamlining its working methods and harmonizing them with the work of other treaty bodies. This included the drafting of concluding observations and follow-up with the aim of making the whole process more efficient and cost-effective. The Committee had accumulated a backlog of 15 reports by August 2009 and was able to address the backlog because the General Assembly granted an extra week for the sessions held in 2010, 2011 and 2012. At the heart of the problem was the shortfall in resources provided to the High Commissioner as well as to conference services. The High Commissioner made a convincing case about the pressures facing her office and conference services in meeting the requirements for the ten treaty bodies. It was increasingly difficult for the conference services to translate the reports. New activities had been added for which additional resources were needed. Astronomical sums of money were not involved. However, tightening the belt further would mean the treaty body system could not protect vulnerable people throughout the world, whether political activists, migrant workers, children, a person subjected to torture or others.

FATIMATA-BINTA VICTORIA DAH, Committee Member, said in regard to the report submission process, the Committee at the beginning had to find its feet and at the impetus of the General Assembly the Committee decided to have States parties submit a written report followed by presentations in person; 2006 guidelines set the terms of submitting and presenting reports. In addition to a common core document, a specific document with information related to articles 1 to 7 of the Convention, as well as observations and reactions to the observations and recommendations of the Committee previously was presented to the Committee. The guidelines were comprehensive and precise in making explicit the steps needed to prepare the report and a review of the articles of the Convention. The guidelines put all States parties on equal footing. The process whereby reports were submitted was the main basis for dialogue between States parties and the Committee, in accordance with article 1. After the report was submitted to the Secretary-General, a country Rapporteur, a Committee Member, reviewed the report and issued concerns to be considered by the Committee.

The main objective of Committee proceedings was to have an exchange with and increase understanding between the Committee and States parties. The dialogue took place over two days with a view to striking a balance in the interventions between the State party and Committee Members. Afterwards, recommendations and observations were submitted by the Committee on the State party’s implementation of the Convention and they were posted online. If the State party had objections, then these were included in the Committee’s end of the year report. The Committee had also developed a procedure for early warning and action. On rare occasions, missions had been sent to States parties facing difficulties related to competencies covered by the Convention. Missions had been made to Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Liberia. Missions had also been made for the purposes of training in several countries. National human rights institutions in the concerned States parties were invited to attend the Committee’s review and, if the State party agreed, make a presentation. The Committee’s relationship with non-governmental organizations had gone back a long time. However, until recently they were not very structured. As of last year, the Committee decided to receive and discuss with non-governmental organizations informally, bringing together all interested organizations in the lead up to the consideration of state reports. Lunchtime briefings also continued. Dialogue could always be improved and thus, the Committee looked forward to the comments of States parties.

PIERRE-RICHARD PROSPER, Committee Member, said there was an overall consensus that the Committee’s work needed to be improved and be more effective and efficient. The burden on States and the secretariat needed to be diminished. The Committee reviewed the process involved in the review of States parties. The written response of States, following the Committee’s initial written comments, was a burden on States parties and the secretariat. The oral reporting tended to be a list of answers to those written submissions, but this did not lend itself to robust dialogue. Now, the Committee issued the State party a list of themes the Committee would like to discuss during the session. These broad themes indicated to the delegation the nature the discussion would take and prepare accordingly. Too often, these became technical discussions and there was much room for confusion. The Committee wanted to hear from States parties about these developments because it wanted to continue to improve, be efficient and conserve resources for other purposes. The Committee sought to make use of technology, such as video-conferencing, and it hoped to find a way to use this technology more and more, and in the reporting context. If, for instance, the capital was able to watch, the delegation did not have to be as large, States parties could produce responses quicker, and reduce costs.

NOURREDINE AMIR, Committee Member, said regarding concluding observations, in 2004 the Committee inaugurated its procedure to follow-up on recommendations and observations. This was progress in monitoring States parties’ progress. It was key for the Committee to receive information between the dialogue and the acceptance of the recommendations and the submission of the next periodic review of the implementation of recommendations. The Committee may request States to provide information within a year of the recommendations. The Committee issued procedural guidelines for States parties on this issue. Measures could include designation of focal points, passing of legislation, coordination with national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations, raising awareness and other actions. The Committee had created a web page dedicated solely to follow-up. The Committee was able to reflect on six years of periodic measures and it had been recognized that there was a positive trend in the implementation of recommendations and the provision of information in this regard. This allowed the Committee to reflect on its follow-up mechanisms.

REGIS DE GOUTTES, Committee Member, said the follow-up procedure allowed States to show their commitment to the Committee by accepting a mechanism for cooperation and implementing recommendations. For critics, the mechanism allowed them recourse to a Committee of independent experts after exhausting other measures. For the Committee Members, the complaints procedure allowed the Committee to develop jurisprudence and interpretation of the treaty which would be of interest to all States parties. This procedure had only been accepted by 54 among the 174 parties. For these 54 States, there had only been 48 complaints to the Committee. There had been growth in the complaints regarding discrimination against Roma, xenophobic and racist comments by politicians, and discrimination in housing or other premises offered to the public. The Committee decided six years ago to implement a follow-up procedure to independent complaints. Upstream, the follow-up Rapporteur wrote draft decisions and other recommendations that were presented to the Committee. Downstream, the follow-up Rapporteur was responsible for monitoring follow-up to the follow-up decisions. With the improvements, the complaints procedure had been much improved to strengthen dialogue with States and ensuring a better approach which respected the rights of both parties, since the State concerned and the complainant were required to submit arguments and counter-arguments.

Comments and Questions of States Parties

States parties found the work of the treaty bodies and the dialogue involved to be useful and important. Parties took encouragement from the way examinations were conducted. The treaty reporting process provided an opportunity for countries to be self-critical and take stock of their internal practices. It presented an opportunity to stand up to the scrutiny of non-governmental organizations and the international community. The participation of non-governmental organizations was particularly valuable. Would the Committee consider holding private as well as public meetings?

Regarding the Universal Periodic Review process, States parties found that the information submitted to the Universal Periodic Review was similar. Was information shared between these mechanisms? What was the impact of the Universal Periodic Review process on the practical work of the Committee on the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination? Also, did the Committee look at special procedures recommendations before issuing their own? There was a need to ensure and avoid duplication among treaty bodies. It would be wise to avoid duplication of questions although it was tricky, given the nature of human rights. Nonetheless, States encouraged the Committee to consider what was being discussed in other fora.

States parties recognized the issue of limited resources. Any alternative approaches for the reporting process, such as those used by the Committee on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, in asking specific questions before the submission of reports would be welcome. Countries suggested the committee focus on the subjects included in advance questions. States asked to know more about the use of the list of themes. Had this provided for a better understanding of the situation in the country? However, other States parties believed that the introducing of new working methods of treaty bodies should be based on the treaty itself. The form of one treaty should not necessarily be copied by other treaty bodies.

States parties wondered whether the level of guidance was commensurate with the Committee’s request that reports generally be forty pages in length. It was unacceptable to place a limit on the number of pages for State reports. Limited resources prevented States parties from submitting their periodic reports. States encouraged the Committee to support countries in preparing reports by providing expert assistance. The idea of teleconferencing was a good idea, particularly for small States and developing countries who did not maintain a mission in Geneva.

The major themes document circulated before the consideration of the report was extremely helpful. The constructiveness of the dialogue depended on the Committee as well as the States parties. It was helpful to have representation of State ministries that were involved in implementing the convention at the State level to provide a multi-dimensional and multifaceted view of its implementation.

Also, more focused questions would be useful, creating the space for follow-up questions. States parties said some of the questions posed under the review were outside the scope of the Convention. There was scope to reduce the length of the hearing by avoiding the duplication of questions. Was the Committee able to make good use of the growing complexity and amount of data and indicators it requested?

Many of the complaints covered xenophobic comments, but the Committee on the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination did not cover xenophobia, although the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action did allow the Committee to consider the issue. Delegations asked the opinion of the Committee regarding the expertise of the Committee covering xenophobia and complaints related thereto.

States parties suggested that one way to strengthen follow-up measures would be to update the website of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights to make the information more available to the public and the State party. It would be useful if the concluding observations were more directly linked to the articles of the Convention.

Response by Committee Members

One Committee Member said the Committee had a period of two years to consider State reports. States parties were to submit a report every two years. However, a procedure had been adopted where States parties could group reports over a four-year period. There was not time to send questions before the reports were prepared. Other Committees could do this because they had fewer States parties, more meetings and fewer reports to consider. If these steps were taken, this would delay the consideration of reports. Five years after a report was prepared, the data was of little use.

The Committee followed carefully what happened in the Universal Periodic Review and took note of the questions asked and the commitments States parties took after consideration of their reports. Initially, there was a fear of a great amount of overlap. However, the treaty bodies took a much more targeted and technical approach by Independent Expert. The Committee made use of the process to ask States why they did not accept certain recommendations, for example. Currently there was a good symbiotic, complementary relationship. The Committee could make use of the conclusion of the working group of the Universal Periodic Review and use their findings to enrich the questions and engagement with States parties. The Committee could be more much precise and professional to take the conclusions of the Universal Periodic Review as a starting point.

The Committee looked at the list of issues before the production of the reports. The State party also knew better what issues were of particular concern for the Committee Members. The list of issues was, in fact, the Committee’s concluding observations. The number of pages had been mandated by Secretariat bodies. The Committee had found that the shorter the report, the better the report was. However, Committee Members recognized this could pose a problem large federal States.

Article 2 of the Convention required States to criminalize to racist statements; this was a constant concern of the Committee. Under the individual complaint procedure, there had been a number of cases, particularly denouncing Islamophobic statements or discriminatory utterances against Roma. The Committee, which was unable to fully accept these complaints for procedural reasons, had made general observations to States, that despite no formal breach of the Convention, States had a duty to avoid all forms of discrimination through statements or remarks in the press.

Committee Members said that sometimes the duplication of questions served to reinforce or drive home their importance. The exchanges should never be seen as bullet point questions. The purpose was to have a dialogue that ensured the Committee delved into the complexities of the convention and explored its implications.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CERD11/035E