COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORTS OF ICELAND

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the seventeenth and eighteenth periodic reports of Iceland on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The Committee also considered the situation in Seychelles under its review procedure for countries whose reports are seriously overdue.

Introducing the reports of Iceland, Ragna Arnadottir, Director at the Ministry of Justice, said Iceland hoped that the information contained in the reports and given during the meeting would be sufficient to show the Committee how Iceland implemented the Convention. The issues covered by the reports were numerous. The most important provision implementing the Convention was article 65 of the Constitution which prohibited discrimination on any unlawful grounds including race and ethnic origin. This was the main basis of legal protection against ethnic or racial discrimination. Various provisions of law addressed in particular the elimination of racial discrimination, including the penal code, the Act on International Cooperation, the Radio Broadcasting Act, and others. Some important legislative changes had been made since the last report was considered.

In preliminary remarks, Linos Alexandre Sicilianos, the Committee Expert who served as Country Rapporteur to the reports, said he was pleased with the replies made by the delegation. Replies had been made in 27 areas including the role of the Reykjavik police, article 14 of the Convention, the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Cybercrime, the right of foreigners to participate in municipal elections, work permits for foreign employees, review of expulsion orders, review of the legal status of refugees on humanitarian grounds, the Government's cooperation with non-governmental organizations, the notion of prevention, the right of asylum seekers to use a language they understand in asylum proceedings, the accessibility and quality of language courses in Icelandic for foreigners, and many others. It had been a very rich exchange, and the quality and responsiveness given were very much appreciated.

In the course of the discussion, which lasted over two meetings, Committee Experts raised questions and issues on the extent of the independence of the Directorate of Immigration and why there was no possibility for a refugee whose application had been denied to appeal that decision other than an appeal to the Ministry of Justice, which was grounds for concern; the impact of the New Act on Foreigners and linked legislation and their impact on the education of foreign students, in particular the need to demonstrate financial self-sufficiency in order to obtain a permit to stay and whether this did not create a foreign under-class with regards to access to education; whether there was an increase in the number of foreigners and whether this could be put down to the new law on foreigners; and issues related to the trafficking of women.

The delegation of Iceland was also made up of representatives of the Permanent Mission of Iceland to the United Nations Office at Geneva and the Ministry of Social Affairs. It also included a Legal Expert.

The Committee will present its concluding remarks on the reports of Iceland towards the end of the session, which will conclude on 19 August 2005.

The country review under the review procedure by the Committee Experts, which took place in the absence of a delegation and report from Seychelles, noted that the sixth to fourteenth periodic reports, due from 1989 to 2005, were all overdue.

Presenting his report on the situation, the Country Rapporteur, Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai, said the last occasion when the Committee considered the periodic report submitted by the Seychelles had been the fourth periodic report, submitted in 1985, and considered in 1988, without the participation of any representative of the State party, a fact that was regretted at the time. A list of questions had been drawn up and was before the Committee, largely based on previous reports and the observations and comments made by the Committee on previous cases. The list had the goal of helping the State party to formulate its next periodic report.

During the discussion, several Experts agreed that there were no obvious signs of discrimination in the Seychelles, and suggested that the Government be reminded of its opportunities regarding the provision of technical assistance by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, subsequent to the verification by the Committee that the Office could do so.

Mr. Sicilianos and Committee Expert Régis de Gouttes also briefly addressed the Committee on a letter received from the Sub-Commission regarding the Committee’s follow-up to its draft General Recommendation on the administration of justice. The Committee briefly discussed the letter and its proposals.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 3 p.m. on Thursday 11 August 2005 when the Committee will take up the initial to fifth periodic reports of Turkmenistan (CERD/C/441/Add.1).

Country Reports

The seventeenth and eighteenth periodic reports of Iceland
(CERD/C/476/Add.5) contain information on the legislative, judicial, administrative and other measures which the country has adopted since the submission of its previous reports to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. In particular, the report addresses the issues raised in the concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination adopted after the consideration of Iceland’s fifteenth and sixteenth periodic reports.

The European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into Icelandic law by Act. No. 62/1994. Following its incorporation, its provisions can be directly invoked in court as domestic legislation. This includes the Seventh Protocol of 22 November 1984 as amended by the Eleventh Protocol. Fundamental changes were made to the human rights chapter of the Icelandic Constitution by Constitutional Act No. 97/1995. The equality principle is implemented in several national acts of law. Since the submission of the last periodic report, Iceland has ratified several international instruments relating to human rights, some of which explicitly address racial discrimination and its elimination. Iceland has also signed a large number of human rights agreements in the period covered by this report.

No legal or administrative provisions in Iceland condone racial discrimination. Any such provision would clearly be in violation of the constitutional principle of equality described above. Icelandic authorities have neither undertaken to engage in any act or practice racial discrimination nor provided support to any such activities. Iceland has participated in a Nordic working group with a specific mandate consisting of clearly defined issues regarding information and practical co-operation between the Nordic countries in the fight against criminal offences involving Nazi and xenophobic views. The group issued its report in 2003. Due to increased immigration to the country, the Icelandic Government has placed emphasis on education as a tool to prevent problems relating to racial discrimination.

Introduction of Reports

RAGNA ARNADOTTIR, Director at the Ministry of Justice of Iceland, introducing the reports, said the most important provision implementing the Convention was article 65 of the Constitution which prohibited discrimination on any unlawful grounds including race and ethnic origin. This was the main basis of legal protection against ethnic or racial discrimination. Various provisions of law addressed in particular the elimination of racial discrimination, including the penal code, the Act on International Cooperation, the Radio Broadcasting Act, and others. Some important legislative changes had been made since the last report was considered, including a new Act on Foreigners, to which changes had been made in 2004 in order to prevent persons from obtaining residence permits through illegal or criminal behaviour, as the previous Act had loopholes. Iceland hoped that the information contained in the report and given during the meeting would be sufficient to show the Committee how Iceland implemented the Convention. The issues covered by the report were numerous.

Responding to the list of questions that had been posed in writing, Ms. Arnadottir said the human rights provisions of the Constitution of Iceland were amended in 1995; a multitude of new human rights provisions were rephrased and modernised, and in this, international conventions on human rights were used as models. In the past decade, the effects of these amendments within the Icelandic legal system had increased greatly, increasing the promotion of human rights in the country. A large number of judgements had been rendered in the past years where the human rights provisions of the Convention had been at issue. Legislation conflicting with the human rights provisions of the Constitution would not be applied by the judiciary. There had also been many examples of courts invalidating administrative decisions conflicting with the human rights provisions of the Constitution.

Other members of the delegation then took up the list of written questions, saying the ethnic characteristics of the Icelandic population was changing, and the proportion of the population with foreign ethnic background had increased considerably in the last few years, with the proportion doubling over the last ten years to about 3.5 per cent of the population in 2003. During this time, the Government and legislation had given the issue of preventing and combating racial discrimination a high priority. Several legislative provisions reflected these fundamental principles. Article 14 of the European Human Rights Convention had full legal effect in Iceland, and several other pieces of legislation addressed racial discrimination and its elimination in particular. For example, the Act on administrative procedures, which had wide application, included a provision on the principle of equality, and stipulated that parties to a case could not be discriminated against on ethnic, racial, religious or other grounds.

The Government was therefore constantly updating and incorporating legal measures to eliminate racial discrimination. The approach of introducing a comprehensive body of legislation concerning racial discrimination had not yet been chosen, but the Government had sought to address racial discrimination in various legislative manners, addressing focused spheres of the community and implementing the equality principle enshrined in the Constitution. Two articles of the Icelandic Penal Code served as a fundamental pillar for the elimination of racial discrimination.

There was a scarcity of court sentences punishing acts of discrimination, the delegation said. There was currently neither ongoing investigation nor cases concerning this. One complaint had been received recently, but following investigation, no action had been deemed necessary. Regarding the question concerning the decrease of the number of accepted asylum seekers since 1998, the explanation was simple, the one year where there were many accepted applications was the year 1998, with 13 accepted applications, ten of which had been from people from the former Yugoslavia. The Government had also been accepting quotas of refugees from that area at that time. Furthermore, it had to be borne in mind that Iceland was frequently the last country to which refugees had recourse. If a foreigner claimed to be an asylum-seeker, a report was made and the relevant case was immediately handed over to the Directorate of Immigration. All border guards received proper training, both on the national and international level, including seminars on international obligations and standards.

An asylum seeker that had received a negative decision at first instance from the Directorate of Immigration could appeal to a higher authority, namely the Ministry of Justice, whose decisions could not be appealed. Refugees were entitled to special assistance for a minimum of one year after their arrival in Iceland with regard to rights such as housing, education, health care and employment. The Ministry of Social Affairs had principal responsibility for their reception and integration, and this work was carried out on the one hand by the local municipality, and on the other by the Icelandic Red Cross and respective Local Red Cross movements. The programme was financed by the Government, and included orientation and language training, housing, health, education, employment and vocational training, and other assistance, including psychological.

Temporary work permits were granted to employers to employ foreign nationals in Iceland, the delegation said, a precondition for which was that a signed contract of employment had to be made for a specific period or project, guaranteeing the work wages and other terms of service. Sometimes, however, other special reasons supported the issue of the permit, e.g. when the foreign worker possessed particular specialist knowledge. Notwithstanding this arrangement, the foreign worker was free to change jobs during the period by resigning his or her job in accordance with the provisions of the relevant collective agreement regarding notice. A temporary work permit granted the foreign worker the right to work on the Icelandic labour market subject to Icelandic laws and regulations, and that person enjoyed the same rights as Icelandic workers. A temporary work permit could be issued to a foreign national who had applied for asylum until a decision had been taken regarding their asylum application.

Regarding the measures adopted to reduce the high school drop-out rate of immigrant children, students at risk of dropping out were given specific attention in the school system, provided with educational and social counselling and students of foreign origin received the same assistance as other students in need. There were also specific projects aimed at assisting immigrant students in improving their possibilities in school. Further, the Ministry of Education was considering ratification of the UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination in Education.

On the topic of the measures taken to publicise and render more effective the office of the Reykjavik police which functioned as a link between the police and people of foreign origin, this was opened in 2001, and 19 persons had contacted the police officer in charge seeking assistance in the year 2003. None of the cases concerned harassment or discrimination on account of ethnic origin, and at the time the report was submitted; the police had not received any complaints from people of foreign origin alleging such conduct. The initiative had been very much welcomed, and had been considered a great improvement. Similarly, the monthly consultation by the so-called response group included the police-officer mentioned above, and representatives from Ministries, the Red Cross, and various other persons who consulted specifically on matters concerning people of foreign origin.

Regarding the issue of the outcome of the complaints submitted by non-citizens to the Ombudsman of Parliament during the period covered by the report, he had considered seven cases pertaining to foreigners during the reporting period, all of which related to the old legislation, which had now been overtaken by the law on foreigners which had entered into force on 1 January 2003.

Finally, the delegation commented on recent reports that prejudice against “newcomers”, such as women of Asian origin, were widespread in Icelandic society, as raised in a written question, responding that it was quite unclear whether there was such a widespread prejudice. It was expected that several measures already mentioned would serve towards reducing prejudice, including the establishment of the Immigration Council, and the support and encouragement to local authorities to implement comprehensive services to immigrants, as well as to encourage further research and pilot projects.

Discussion

LINOS ALEXANDRE SICILIANOS, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur, said the very detailed responses to the questions really facilitated the task of the Committee. He also wished to stress the regularity with which Iceland had entered into dialogue with the Committee, and that all its reports had been submitted within the time limits. The State party had ratified a certain number of international conventions as well as the amendment to article 8 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination and the declaration linked to article 14. The composition of the population was interesting, as until recently it was a country that was culturally homogenous. The majority of immigrants came from European countries, but there were others from Asia, including the Philippines and Thailand, and a restricted number of refugees were received in the framework of resettlement programmes.

The constitutional principle of equality and non-discrimination was implemented through several pieces of legislation. The State party believed that there was no serious social conflict, but the Convention stressed the concept of prevention, aiming at changing attitudes as early as possible in order to limit xenophobic attitudes before they grew out of control. There were two provisions penalising forms of racial discrimination, but there was no case law or jurisprudence regarding these provisions. Mr. Sicilianos asked the delegation to explain this gap, and asked whether the public ignored their existence, and whether there was legal assistance for those wishing to complain.

The Criminal Code listed the factors that determined sanctions, and asked whether racial motives could be included as an aggravating circumstance, and whether there was jurisprudence in this regard. He also pointed out a legal lacunae regarding the interdiction of organizations with a racial motive. He welcomed the adoption of the Protocol on xenophobic activities perpetrated on the Internet, and asked whether it had been ratified, and also welcomed the adoption of a law in 1998 allowing non-citizens to vote in municipal elections. He had a number of questions regarding the granting of work permits to employers instead of employees. He noted that recent legislation on immigration clarified many points, and aimed at regulating the entrance to, the stay in, and the departure from the territory of Iceland. The problem of trafficking in humans was also raised, and he noted that there was no conclusive proof that there were victims of trafficking in Iceland of women coming from Central and Eastern European States. He asked for further information on the topic, adding that if the phenomenon did exist, what measures did the Government undertake to resolve the situation.

Mr. Sicilianos also noted an apparent reticence from the Government to grant the status of refugees to so-called “independent” refugees. He asked if there was any link to the events of 11 September 2001 and the drop in applications over the last few years. According to information received, there were cases where people who had applied for work permits had lost their humanitarian status as refugees, and asked for further clarification of the rights, obligations and legal status of those admitted to the country for humanitarian reasons. How could victims of racial discrimination apply for damages, he asked, inquiring whether this was due to a legal lacuna, or a gap in the report. He welcomed an important set of measures which included education, language learning by immigrant children, multicultural centres for foreigners, and other measures promoting tolerance by the Icelandic society, all of which had ensured that it was now multi-cultural.

Other Committee Experts then asked further questions and commented on a wide range of issues, including that legal provisions against racial discrimination appeared to be more or less correct; the extent of the independence of the Directorate of Immigration and why there was no possibility for a refugee whose application had been denied to appeal that decision other than an appeal to the Ministry of Justice, which was grounds for concern; the funding of the Icelandic Human Rights Centre; the impact of the New Act on Foreigners and linked legislation and their impact on the education of foreign students, in particular the need to demonstrate financial self-sufficiency in order to obtain a permit to stay and whether this did not create a foreign under-class with regards to access to education; whether there was an increase in the number of foreigners and whether this could be put down to the new law on foreigners; issues related to the trafficking of women; and reported problems due to limitation of access to public places for foreigners.

Response by Delegation

Responding to the questions posed orally by the Committee, the delegation said regarding the issue of whether article 4(b) of the Convention was fully complied with in Icelandic legislation, which was raised by several Experts, the Government believed that it had fully complied with the requirements of the Convention in this respect. An association required a lawful purpose, and one that aimed to attack another group would be considered to have an unlawful objective that could constitute a punishable offence.

Few indictments had been issued, and few judgements given. From early in 2000, no complaint had been filed with regard to article 338 of the Constitution. The Reykjavik Police had opened an office of the policeman with the mandate of forming a link between groups, providing assistance to foreigners, and also to encourage the filing of complaints. However, no complaints had been received with regard to cases of discrimination, although much assistance had been provided.

On the subject of an association of Icelandic nationalists, this group appeared to have vanished. Concerning the declaration under article 14, no complaint had been filed against Iceland in this regard. Information on human rights was made available on the Government website, and included the Government’s commitments, and the reports to the various Committees. A news release was also issued on the concluding observations of the Committee, which were also translated and published on the website.

On the changes in the Municipal Act regarding changes in municipal elections, since the amendment passed in 2002 allowing foreigners to vote, the only municipal elections since had been held that same year, the delegation said. No figures were available, but around 1,000 individuals used the new opportunity to vote. Around 2,000 gained the right to vote, and about half of them used the right. One foreigner became the member of a municipal Government in 2002 as a result of the new provision. In many areas, municipalities were eager to include foreigners, and were asking them to participate more in the community. The new provision in the act was introduced to foreigners all over Iceland, and the Ministry of Social Affairs published a brochure in ten or twelve languages, and the new right was explained to immigrants in meetings.

Regarding equal opportunities to education, foreigners who were forced to quit high school for economic reasons were very rare. On temporary work permits being granted to employers, and not to the foreign workers, after three years of work, the workers themselves received the permit. A precondition for issuing the permit was a signed contract of employment for a specific period or programme, and the terms of service and salary were to be equivalent to those of domestic workers. The labour market in Iceland was both small and homogenous, and thus quite sensitive to even small changes. The labour force was around 140,000, and granting the employers temporary work permits allowed the Government to better oversee the situation. The permit to stay in Iceland, which was concomitant to the employment, was granted to the employees themselves, and this included the dates for the period of employment. It was fairly common for foreign workers to change jobs during the period of their temporary permit.

In relation to workers who were employed by foreign companies in Iceland, the delegation said there were a lot of foreign companies in Iceland who hired foreign workers, with an estimate of about 2,000 workers. The Directorate of Labour granted the work permits to the employers in this situation. The Act on Employment Rights of Foreign Nationals contained no provision on discrimination.

On numbers of refugees and whether there was a relation between the events of 11 September 2001 and the number of refugees, the delegation said this was not the case. Several asylum seekers had been granted permits to stay on humanitarian grounds. The reason for the low number of asylum grants was due to the Dublin Convention, as asylum seekers went to other countries before Iceland, and then were sent back to those countries to have their cases dealt with there. This had been explained to UNHCR, and there seemed to be no other explanation at hand. The Minister of Justice delivered a written report to the Parliament in the 2003-2004 session on the fate or the conclusion of the cases of asylum seekers from 1996-2003, which showed that these issues were being watched and discussed by the Parliament.

Permits to stay on humanitarian grounds were given temporarily, for one year at a time. Permits to stay on the basis of work were actually better, and this was why the former were revoked when the latter were granted. Practice had shown that this was a better situation for foreigners.

Regarding remedies for victims of active discrimination, Icelandic law provided for such remedies both in penal and private law, and penalties included fines and imprisonment, as well as the possibility to make a claim for compensation and/or damages. The Icelandic State provided a guarantee that compensation and/or damages would be provided to the victim of discrimination in the case of an offence against the penal code, even if the offender could not be found, was unknown, or was of unsound mind.

The Directorate of Immigration was under the control of the Ministry of Justice, the delegation said. It was one of the main features of Icelandic administration that the system existed where the decision of an authority could be complained about to a higher authority. The complaints system was ruled by a general system on this subject within the administration. Decisions could be reviewed by courts, or referred to the Ombudsman for an opinion.

Cooperation between the Government and human rights NGOs was good, and this was particularly positive, as sometimes they highlighted issues that had been missed and thus kept the Government on its toes. When a Bill was written in Iceland, the Parliament sent it to NGOs and other bodies for comment. The Ministry of Social Affairs had a long-standing cooperation with the Icelandic Red Cross, as an illustration of collaboration, as it was an active participant on decision-making regarding refugees and humanitarian areas. Save the Children and labour unions also participated in this collaboration.

There was no National Human Rights Institution under the Paris Principles in Iceland, and no decision had been taken on whether to institute one.

Regarding asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors, the delegation said a provision had been added to the Act on Foreigners in their regard, and information on that would be given in the next report. There had been no reference to the Committee’s concluding observations in this Act, but there had been to the Convention. On family reunification, there was such a principle, and not very many conditions joined to it. A proposal had been made in a Bill from the Ministry of Justice, after deliberation and comment, including from the public, to legislate on family reunification. Each case was assessed on a specific basis by the Directorate on Immigration.

One hundred and fifty hours of study of Icelandic was required for a residence permit, and it was the aim that the quality of this training would be improved.

On the ethnic composition of the foreigners in Iceland, the entire nation was close to 290,000 inhabitants. The number of foreigners came to 10,000, of which 70 per cent were from Europe, the majority from Poland. Seventeen per cent came from the Philippines and Thailand. Approximately 20,000 inhabitants were born outside of Iceland, and this figure included Icelandic citizens born abroad as well as foreigners. It was estimated that about 16,000 people were therefore of foreign origin.

The Icelandic legal system was based on the dualism of international and national law, the first having to be incorporated into national legislation. Consideration was taken of international obligations, and case law could be presented which clearly illustrated that fact. No complaint had been made to the Ombudsman by an Icelandic citizen on the grounds of issues related to ethnic origin as far as the delegation knew.

Regarding trafficking, the authorities were fully aware that Iceland could have become a country of transit or destination, and border controls were very stringent in this regard. It had proven difficult to charge individuals for trafficking, as the victims were very reluctant to cooperate, as they did not consider that they were victims of any crime. Nevertheless, there was a special provision in the Penal Code for the punishment of trafficking.

Committee Experts then raised further issues and made more comments, including the issue of judicial review of Justice Ministry appeal decisions regarding expulsion orders; the potential vulnerability of foreign-born students; and for information on the history of slaves in Iceland, in particular in the context of the settling of the country. The delegation responded briefly to some of these questions.

Preliminary Remarks

LINOS ALEXANDRE SICILIANOS, the Committee Expert serving as Country Rapporteur, in his preliminary remarks, said he was pleased with the replies made by the delegation. Replies had been made in 27 areas including the role of the Reykjavik police, article 14 of the Convention, the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Cybercrime, the right of foreigners to participate in municipal elections, work permits for foreign employees, review of expulsion orders, the legal status of refugees on humanitarian grounds, the Government's cooperation with non-governmental organizations, the notion of prevention, the right of asylum seekers to use a language they understand in asylum proceedings, the accessibility and quality of language courses in Icelandic for foreigners, and many others. It had been a very rich exchange, and the quality and responsiveness given were very much appreciated.

Consideration of Situation in Seychelles

Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai, the Expert serving as Country Rapporteur, said the last occasion when the Committee considered the periodic report submitted by the Seychelles had been the fourth periodic report, submitted in 1985, and considered in 1988, without the participation of any representative of the State party, a fact that was regretted at the time. The Committee also expressed regret at the very general character of the report, and hoped the next one would give a clearer picture of the Government’s policy on racial discrimination. He also pointed out that, in the context of article 4, even if there was no racial discrimination in a country, no-one could predict that unfortunate events would not change this situation in the future, and that it was the duty of the State party to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the Convention.

Seychelles had ratified seven human rights treaties with reporting obligations, the first being the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the latest being the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture, and Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in May 1992. In respect of these obligations, reports were yet to be submitted in several cases. Seychelles was also party to regional human rights instruments. It was an archipelago of 115 islands in the Indian Ocean, with an estimated population of 81,000 in 1991. It had achieved independence in 1976. Most of the people of Sychelles were descendants of French settlers and slaves from the East African coast.

Very little information had been contained in the periodic reports of the State party which would allow the Committee to undertake a meaningful analysis of the situation. This point had been made in 1988 and in the concluding observations on the report. Prima facie, in light of the arrears in reports, it appeared that the suggestion made by the Committee during the review in March 1997 for the State party to take advantage of technical assistance provided by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights was ever more important.

A list of questions had been drawn up and was before the Committee, largely based on previous reports and the observations and comments made by the Committee on previous cases. The list had the goal of helping the State party to formulate its next periodic report, Mr. Pillai said.

Discussion on Situation of Seychelles

Experts then raised further issues, speaking about the peaceful nature of Seychelles and suggesting that this was why no report had been submitted; that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was hosted in a hut from which it was possible to fish; that there were no obvious patent forms of discrimination noticeable when in the country; how the Committee could help the Government to fulfil its obligations under the Convention; that the Committee write a letter to the Government regarding the possibility of availing itself of technical assistance from the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, subsequent to the verification by the Committee that the Office could do so; and Seychelles’ need to enter into dialogue with the Committee.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CRD05028E