COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the ninth to twelfth periodic reports of the Dominican Republic on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Presenting the report, Alejandra Liriano de la Cruz, Undersecretary of State for Foreign Relations of the Dominican Republic, underscored that, when the Dominican Constitution spoke of personal and public rights of individuals, those were applicable to persons without exception, so there was no need to resort to international treaties to seek protection against discrimination. In addition, racial discrimination was now classified as a crime in the draft criminal code before Congress. But while the Dominican Republic had an unshakeable resolve to promote and strengthen the enjoyment of human rights of all persons, it was facing a number of serious challenges. It was a developing country, and had had to deal with a wave of illegal immigrants which had impaired the Government’s ability to effectively carry out its social programmes. However, with a will to overcome that situation, the Dominican Republic would continue, through concrete and objective measures, to promote mutual respect and collaboration between everyone living in the country, and to further institutionalize democracy and the rule of law for the benefit of all its inhabitants.
In preliminary concluding observations, Alexei Avtonomov, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of the Dominican Republic, said that sometimes racial discrimination was a result of deliberate policy on the part of the Government, but sometimes not. It could also be a result of historical legacies. States were required to root out all discriminatory practices, including indirect ones. No country was free from such discrimination, and even once eliminated racial discrimination could shift shape, and crop up in new forms. The issue of providing information on skin colour and eye colour on national identification cards was one which the Committee would need to reflect on.
During the discussion, other Committee Experts expressed concerns and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, serious contradictions and discrepancies presented in the report, in particular with regard to ideas about race and ethnicity, and references to genetics and skin colour in that context; whether peoples’ skin colour was still recorded on identity cards; and how it was determined if someone was “Black”, given that the population did not prefer to self-identify themselves in that way; and whether Haitians were considered “Black”, and if so, whether discrimination against them related to the fact that they were Black, that they were Haitian, or that they were poor? Other concerns included reports of a modern-day slave trade in Haitians to work in the sugar industry in the Dominican Republic; collective deportations under the “repatriation protocols” between Haiti and the Dominican Republic; and different colour birth certificates issued depending on the nationality of one’s parents, and the fact that some children appeared to have no right to a birth certificate at all.
The delegation of the Dominican Republic also included Claudia Hernández Bona, Ambassador, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Dominican Republic Mission at Geneva and other members of the Permanent Mission, as well as representatives from the Ministry for Foreign Relations, the Ministry of Education, the Judiciary, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance, the Ministry of Labour, the Institute of the Sugar Industry of the Dominican Republic, the National Police, and the House of Representatives.
The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the ninth to twelfth periodic reports of the Dominican Republic, which were presented in one document, at the end of its session, which concludes on 7 March.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to review the situation in Gambia, Monaco, the United Arab Emirates and Panama under its review procedure for States parties whose reports are seriously overdue.
Report of the Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic cannot nowadays be regarded as a national community that comprises distinct ethnic groups, says the combined ninth to twelfth periodic report of the Dominican Republic (CERD/C/DOM/12), even though the country’s original population came mainly from Africa and Europe, the aboriginal peoples having been exterminated in the early days of colonization. Dominicans regard themselves as a single people, in the sense that White, Black or mixed race Dominicans do not consider their fellow citizens, whatever their skin colour, to belong to a different culture or ethnicity. The presence of racist attitudes, mainly attributable to the predominance of European aesthetic conventions that attribute values to skin colour, is an inheritance from colonialism that inhibits the Dominican from fully embracing his or her identity. The country has a population of 8,200,000, 80 per cent of whom are Black, and 20 per cent are mixed race. Approximately 1 million Haitians live in the Dominican Republic, engaged in various occupations, including construction, agriculture, private security services, domestic service and the informal sector. Historically, the existence of the population of African origin was denied in the Dominican Republic; as a result, there are no statistics reflecting its presence. The category of “Black, of African origin” is not considered to be part of the country’s ethnic and racial make up, which is why the concept of “mulatto” was developed in the sixteenth century to describe the descendants of mixed race relationships. This description was used in the first national census carried out in 1920. Later censuses did not include this term, and the description of ethnic origin depended on the perception of the person conducting the interview. Under the dictatorship of Rafael Leónidas Trujillo, the authorities imposed the classification “Indian” and variants of it in order to describe skin colour, which is why Dominicans prefer to call themselves “pale Indian” or “Brown” rather than Black.
The Dominican Republic does not have a policy framework that expressly relates to people of African origin. There is no doubt that, over the last few years, efforts on the part of non-governmental organizations and the Government to meet commitments arising from the ratification of several international instruments have resulted in significant progress in the area of economic, social and cultural rights. The Ministry of Labour does not investigate the nationality or legal status of a worker who contacts the authorities to seek advice or to lodge a complaint. It also takes an active and sustained interest in any complaint that a worker’s rights are being violated, regardless of the worker’s nationality.
Presentation of Report
ALEJANDRA LIRIANO DE LA CRUZ, Undersecretary of State/Vice Minister for Foreign Relations of the Dominican Republic, said that the Dominican Republic, which shared the Island of Hispaniola with Haiti, had been continuing its efforts to promote and ensure the human rights of everyone in the country so that they could fully enjoy their human rights. With the destabilization of Haiti, the flow of illegal immigration had increased on such a scale that it exceeded the State’s capacity to deal with it. Similarly, there had been an increase in illegal trafficking in drugs, arms and other goods across the country’s borders. That situation was exacerbated by the increasingly stringent immigration policy of the United States, and the pre-emptory refoulement of the Haitian “Boat People” from its shores.
The Dominican Republic was a multiracial and multicultural State, Ms. de La Cruz observed. As of July 2007, there was a population of 9,563,918, with the following ethnic breakdown: 73 per cent multiracial (most mulattoes); 16 per cent White; and 11 per cent Black. A central difficulty in providing such ethnic breakdowns was establishing clearly what physical characteristics determined whether one could be considered Black in the Dominican Republic. The multiracial and multicultural nature of the country had meant that the boundaries between different races were not so polarized as in other countries.
When the Dominican Constitution spoke of personal and public rights of individuals, those were applicable to persons without exception, so there was no need to resort to international treaties to seek protection against discrimination, Ms. de La Cruz underscored. There was no procedure for differential treatment for those of different nationalities, and foreigners were subjected to the same rules and rights in the Dominican Republic. While article 100 of the Constitution provided for the legal right to equality, article 46 nullified any norms that violated that right. Furthermore, racial discrimination was now classified as a crime in the draft criminal code before Congress.
In the Dominican Republic all resident foreigners enjoyed the same civil rights as nationals, Ms. de La Cruz continued. The Dominican Republic was a party to the International Convention on the Civil Rights of Foreigners, adopted at the sixth Inter-American Conference held in Havana in 1928, and therefore recognized all the individual social safeguards for foreigners as it recognized for its own citizens, as well as all the fundamental civil rights.
The Dominican Republic had an independent judiciary, which was essential to guaranteeing due process, Ms. de La Cruz said. The National School of the Magistracy of the Supreme Court of Justice had established training courses on human rights for all members of the judicial staff. Similarly, the National Police had created the Institute of Human Dignity which provided training in human rights and humanitarian law not only to its members, but also for the general public. In the same way, the Armed Forces had created a Military Institute for Human Rights that offered courses to all levels of the armed services.
In accordance with the Vienna Declaration obligations on States parties to implement national human rights education plans, the Dominican Republic had, in 1994, published a national human rights education plan, in two volumes: the first dealing with an analysis of the situation, and the second with a strategy. In addition, an Inter-Agency Commission on Human Rights had been established, as mandated by the Vienna Programme and Plan of Action. That Commission was responsible for drafting reports to be presented to human rights treaty bodies regarding the implementation of the treaties that the Dominican Republic had ratified.
In addition, the Government had created an Inter-Agency Commission to combat human trafficking, headed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
There were no systematic violations of human rights in the Dominican Republic, Ms. de La Cruz stressed, and that fact had been attested to by the members and country Rapporteurs of the United Nations Committee on Human Rights, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and representatives of the Inter-American System of Human Rights.
While the Dominican Republic had an unshakeable resolve to promote and strengthen the enjoyment of human rights of all persons, it was facing a number of serious challenges, Ms. de La Cruz said. It was a developing country, and had had to deal with a wave of illegal immigrants which had impaired the Government’s ability to effectively carry out its social programmes, as it meant tremendous resources from its health and education budget had to be made available to account for that portion of the population. However, with a will to overcome that situation, the Dominican Republic would continue, through concrete and objective measures, to develop a better knowledge about the real situation of the people living in the country today, and to work towards the promotion of mutual respect and collaboration between everyone living in the country, to further institutionalize democracy and the rule of law for the benefit of all its inhabitants.
Response by the Delegation to Written Questions Submitted in Advance
Responding to the list of issues submitted by the Committee in advance with regard to anti-discrimination provisions in legislation, the delegation noted that, aside from the strong Constitutional protections, international instruments to which the Dominican Republic was a party were considered to be of a Constitutional level and superseded the national legislation. Moreover, Article 32 of the draft for the reform of the Constitution, which had been put to the Executive in mid-2007, further elaborated on the right to equality set out in the Constitution, spelling out the right to be free of discrimination, with regard to race, gender, and other categories.
In the labour sphere, labour law applied equally to foreigners and citizens and prohibited discrimination on numerous grounds, including race and nationality, the delegation noted.
As for the draft Criminal Code, the delegation said that it contained a number of measures to buttress protections against discrimination of any kind. The draft Code provided for sanctions for unequal or offensive treatment on the part of natural persons owing to their origin, age, sex, family circumstances, trade union activities or membership or non-membership, or actual or supposed membership of a specific ethnic group, nation, race or religion, among others. Sanctions included prison sentences of two years and fines could be handed down for discrimination in a number of areas, for example, in the provision of goods or services.
As to whether the law on freedom of expression respected the provisions of the Convention and provided for penal sanctions, the delegation said that it stated that defamation of a group of persons distinguished by a specific origin or race or religion were punishable by imprisonment for a period of between one month and one year and a fine if the action was designed to provoke feelings of hate among the population. That provision was designed to penalize not necessarily those who incited hate, but also the means by which hate was incited.
On migration questions, the General Law on Migration had been adopted in 2004, and provided for deportation under four conditions: clandestine entry; entry by false declaration or documents; entry by documents procured fraudulently; or overstaying a visit to the country. Deportation could not be ordered if the foreigner was married or had a Dominican life partner for 10 years or had Dominican children or had been living in the country for 10 years legally. The law also set out the rights of those subject to deportation proceedings. Deportees had the right to a hearing, the right to a defence (a qualified lawyer and an interpreter, if they did not speak Spanish) as well as the right of appeal.
There were a number of protocols on repatriation. The delegation explained that repatriation was a procedure different from expulsion or deportation, and basically involved the return of the Haitians illegally living in the Dominican Republic. Those protocols had been worked out with the Haitian authorities and provided for humane returns of such persons.
Regarding measures to prevent manifestations of xenophobia with regard to those of Haitian origin and to protect such persons, the delegation said that human rights non-governmental organizations encouraged foreigners and Haitians to have access to courts in cases where all judicial actions were available to them. The Dominican Republic guaranteed that all foreigners were duly informed of their rights and how to use them, including via television and radio programmes in Creole.
Regarding violent attacks on Haitians, in the Dominican Republic there was no practice of violent acts against Haitians per se, although it could be said that there were violent acts against individuals in general. Those were of an isolated nature and were no different from the other such acts perpetrated in the Dominican territory. In the particular case of two Haitians who had been robbed and killed in the Province of Santo Domingo, an investigation had been carried. The national police report submitted to the Public Prosecutor’s office, despite the efforts undertaken, and a number of interrogations, had not been conclusive. In any event, the Government was very concerned about violence in general in Dominican society and had established a plan of action on violent crime, as a result of which violent crimes had fallen from 27 to 23 per cent between 2005 and 2006
On the law that prohibited begging, the delegation wished to affirm that no Haitians had been repatriated under that law.
Regarding reports that Haitian citizens with valid birth certificates were denied identification papers or copies of their birth certificates owing to their ethnicity, the delegation said that there was no such practice. Measures were undertaken to verify the data supplied and to review requests for identity documents on an individual basis. Dominican citizens, too, were subject to the same questions as to the genuineness of their documents. Admittedly, the situation of the Civil Registry in the Dominican Republic had been addressed with particular interest with a view to ensuring that all documents were regularized.
The delegation underscored that the issuance of papers was increasingly under scrutiny in view of a growing phenomenon of identity theft.
As to why there were no convictions in discrimination cases, the delegation said that was simply as there had been no discrimination complaints received in the Dominican Republic. In that regard, the law establishing the Human Rights Ombudsman, competent for hearing such complaints, had been adopted in 2002, but the establishment of that function was still in a transitory phase, pending agreement on a number of issues. It was expected an Ombudsman would be chosen soon.
On social issues, the delegation said that everyone in the Dominican Republic, both citizens and foreigners, enjoyed equal access to basic social services, including water, electricity, health and education. Today, the Dominican Republic was working to achieve the Millennium Development Goals with regard to primary education, and any child was entitled to register in primary schools in the Dominican Republic up to the fourth year, regardless of a lack of birth certificate or the legal status of their parents.
On monitoring of the workers in the sugar industry undertaken by the Government and other international observers, such as the United Nations, the delegation said that the workers in that sector participated in that work on a fully voluntary basis, and were at liberty to change employers. There was no instance of recruitment of foreign labour that had been done to the exclusion of the Dominicans, or that was kept segregated from them.
Regarding training for staff of the Central Election Board, the delegation announced the establishment of a career planning and training programme for those civil servants responsible for keeping the Civil Registry. In May 2007, a merit-based career-tracking programme had been instituted, and, in January 2008, a school for such civil servants had been established.
Oral Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts
ALEXEI AVTONOMOV, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of the Dominican Republic, said that the legislation of the Dominican Republic showed that there were laws and provisions to eliminate discrimination. However, at the same time there existed a structural racism, rooted in the history of the Dominican Republic. Indeed, the report had recognized the presence of racist attitudes, mainly attributable to the predominance of European aesthetic trends.
Mr. Avtonomov asked why the Dominican Republic had not yet ratified the amendment to article 8 of the Convention, and whether it had any plans to make a declaration under article 14, which would recognize the Committee’s competence to receive individual communications of violations by the State party of its obligations.
Regarding education, Mr. Avtonomov was concerned that, despite the policy of non-discrimination in the education sphere set out by the Government, enrolment rates and literacy rates for Haitians continued to be lower than those for nationals.
Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, serious contradictions and discrepancies presented in the report, in particular with regard to ideas about race and ethnicity, and references to genetics and skin colour in that context. Also, he wondered if peoples’ skin colour was still recorded on identity cards. An Expert asked how it was determined if someone was “Black”, given the information in the report that the population did not prefer to self-identify themselves in that way. This issue was particularly important with regard to discrimination against Haitians coming into the country. Were those Haitians considered “Black”, and if so, did discrimination against them relate to the fact that they were Black, that they were Haitian, or that they were poor? Other concerns included reports of a modern-day slave trade in Haitians to work in the sugar industry in the Dominican Republic; collective deportations under the “repatriation protocols” between Haiti and the Dominican Republic; and different colour birth certificates issued depending on the nationality of one’s parents, and the fact that some children appeared to have no right to a birth certificate at all.
In the education sphere, an Expert wondered about the information in the report that the 10-Year Education Plan, which established a new curriculum for Dominican education, did “not introduce content that would radically alter the role of Blacks in everyday life”. In general he asked for information about how the Dominican Republic intended to pursue its aspirations to racial unity and multiculturalism, and whether there were any plans to do that through the educational curriculum.
Response by Delegation to Oral Questions
Before answering questions, the delegation wished to go further into the written replies it had presented, noting that they contained a considerable amount of information and data that were essential to understanding the situation. Many of the answers to questions raised were contained therein.
Responding to questions on nationality, the delegation clarified that the Constitution did not accord Dominican nationality to all those who were born within its borders. In fact, it followed a combination of both ius solis and ius sanguinis. Legitimate children of foreigners living in the country, diplomatic staff or those in transit through the country were entitled to Dominican nationality. Those who drew nationality from ius solis did so via the parents who were for some reason legally in the country. The pink birth certificate issued to foreign children was simply an administrative measure, as part of the setting up of the foreign citizens registry. That was not meant in any way to be racially discriminatory.
Regarding immigration, the delegation noted that the Dominican Republic had one land border and six maritime borders. The land border had been the subject of an ongoing crisis in immigration, owing to the structural crisis in Haiti, which ranked lowest on the United Nations Human Development Index of any country in the region. There was great concern in the Dominican Congress that if the international community did not sustain its programme for reconstruction in Haiti, Haiti’s problems would spill over onto the rest of the region, and principally onto the Dominican Republic. Therefore, the Dominican Republic’s priority in foreign policy was to achieve the structural integrity of Haiti, and it was prepared to help them to do that. What the Dominican Republic was not prepared to do was to find a Dominican solution to the problem.
In the labour sphere, the delegation said that the Ministry of Labour, via the General Inspectorate for Labour, the labour inspection system, and the inspectorate of the Office of Gender Equality, was carrying out the new labour norms set by the Dominican Republic and within the international treaties to which it was a party. Notably, the International Labour Organization, in a report submitted on 25 February, had hailed the Dominican Republic as having the best rate of implementation of labour inspections, both regular and surprise inspections, in the region.
As for the contribution of Haitian manpower and immigration to the sugar industry in the Dominican Republic, the delegation said there were 15 sugar plantations in the country, of which only three were working. There were 350 sugar towns or Bateyes, where more than 250,000 persons lived, mostly Haitian and descendants of Haitians. Only 11,000 persons among the 250,000 in the Bateyes were currently employed in the sugar industry, cutting the cane, processing it, and other more skilled jobs.
The average salary of a Haitian immigrant or a Dominican descended from Haitian parents working in the sugar industry was $220 a month. The sugar industry brought in almost 2.5 per cent of the gross domestic product of the country. Added to their salaries, the sugar workers had free housing, drinking water and electricity, transport and education for their children, as well as free medical care. To compare with other salaries, agricultural workers received $106 per month, and those in the construction industry were paid $295 a month. The delegation noted that those salaries, like those for sugar workers, were not arbitrary, but were set by the National Salary Committee of the Labour Ministry.
The delegation underscored that the conditions in the sugar industry in the Dominican Republic were in no way compatible with references to “modern slavery”. The labour code prohibited discrimination, and banned work for children under 14 years of age. The Dominican Republic was a party to the eight fundamental ILO instruments in this field, including Convention No. 111 concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation and Convention No. 182 on the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, and the Government had issued a law to ensure the provisions of those conventions were carried out.
Further Oral Questions Posed by Experts
In a second round of questions, an Expert expressed concern once again about the serious discrepancy between the information provided by the delegation and that coming from numerous other objective non-governmental sources. Perhaps that lack of congruence pointed to a lacuna in the government machinery, and a need for independent institutions to be in place to monitor the situation. When it came to the legal and administrative provisions in place – when the Committee heard about the laws and the minimum salaries, for example – that was probably correct. But there might be another story, one that was not part of the official story or the official labour market that was not being represented here. While sympathizing with the situation of the Dominican Republic, suffering from a massive migratory influx, an Expert also pointed out that that immigration provided the country with a large pool of available migrant labour, which was a benefit to the construction of the country. The Dominican Republic should recognize the contribution of Haitians and work to prevent discrimination against them. Of particular concern was information according to which, when a child was born in a hospital, if the mother was thought to be from Haiti the child was denied a birth certificate. Many Experts reiterated concerns about the issuance of different colour (pink) birth certificates to foreigners, and the stateless condition of many children, in particular in relation to access of children with either pink certificates or no birth certificates at all to education and other social services.
In further comments, Experts asked, among others, if there were plans to introduce anti-discrimination provisions similar to those in the labour sphere in other areas; whether the Government would consider undertaking a census on the basis of self-identification; and what had been the fate of the indigenous population, and if there were any of them left.
Replies by the Delegation
Responding to those questions and others, the delegation said, with regard to the need for specific anti-discrimination provisions in areas other than the labour sphere, that might be a good idea, but article 100 of the Constitution superseded all other laws and policies to impose a standard of equality and non-discrimination.
The delegation said it was essential that the Committee understood how the population felt about its multiracial heritage. The wide variation in physical characteristics present in the large delegation present today was representative of the society as a whole. It had been that way in Dominican society for hundreds of years and skin colour was not a subject of discrimination. To put the colour of one’s skin on an electoral identity card did not strike citizens of the Dominican Republic as discriminatory. That was simply an identifying feature, like eye colour or scars or marks, and was in no way seen to be racist. Now, however, the new passports registered biometric features, and the electoral identity card would soon be replaced with a biometric card as well.
On the issue of mothers without identification papers who had given birth in the Dominican Republic, the delegation said that, indeed, in the past there had not been a procedure to allow for such births to be registered. With the establishment of the Foreign Citizens Registry, however, a mechanism was in place to resolve that question and provided for a pink certificate to be issued. Unfortunately, non-governmental organizations had opposed the adoption of that measure and brought a court case, although it had been precisely those organizations that had protested against the prior situation. It was absolutely not true that someone with a pink certificate had less access to services than anyone else. All inhabitants of the island shared the same rights in that regard.
The delegation reiterated that there was no discrimination against foreigners, or indeed of those children without proper documentation, in the school system up to the fourth year. Of the 200,000 students in the first cycle at the first level, some 19,500 did not have the proper, regularized documentation. As for discrepancies in the illiteracy rate vis-à-vis foreigners and nationals, the delegation noted that there had been a steady improvement in the overall illiteracy rate of inhabitants: in 1996, the rate had been 17 per cent; in 2002, 13.1 per cent; in 2007, 10.8 per cent; and it was expected that by 2012 the Dominican Republic would be fully literate, which would obviously benefit both foreigners and nationals.
On repatriation protocols and “mass repatriations”, the delegation said that the repatriation procedures specifically set out regulations to prevent against discrimination. There were no mass repatriations. Each case was taken individually, and an individual form was filled out, setting out what identification papers or property the individual possessed. In cases involving minors, the procedures ensured that they were only repatriated with family members. There was a possibility to demand a temporary stay of a repatriation order, and 100 per cent of all such requests by Haitian nationals had been granted. Moreover, amparo proceedings could be instituted to challenge such orders.
Regarding elimination of references to genetics and skin colour in the laws, that issue was being looked at by Congress, the delegation said.
As for the benefits in the labour market by an influx of migrant workers, the delegation pointed out that, owing to the extreme poverty of its neighbour, the existence of a large pool of migrant labour from a country with a much lower minimum income did not help to better distribute income or to ensure equal opportunities in the Dominican Republic.
The Dominican Republic had no indigenous population, as they had been totally exterminated, the delegation affirmed. It was that extermination that had given rise to the need for the massive importation of African slave labour to work on the plantations. Indeed, for that reason, there were no distinct, separate racial categories in the country.
Preliminary Concluding Observations
In preliminary concluding observations, ALEXEI AVTONOMOV, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of the Dominican Republic, said the concluding observations on the report of the Dominican Republic would represent the collective wisdom of the whole Committee. He could not say at this juncture which problems would be highlighted, or what recommendations would be made. He did want to stress that the Committee was not a court of judgment. They worked on the basis of the mandate given to them by the States parties, including the Dominican Republic, and not according with their individual national affiliations.
Mr. Avtonomov recalled that racial discrimination was the main focus of the Committee. Sometimes it was a result of deliberate policy on the part of the Government, but sometimes not. It could also be a result of historical legacies. States were required to root out all discriminatory practices, including indirect ones. No country was free from such discrimination, and even once eliminated racial discrimination could shift shape, and crop up in new forms.
As to the issue of information on skin colour and eye colour on the national identification card, Mr. Avtonomov said the Committee would need to reflect on that. It would also need to look into any interlinkage between biometric data and socio-economic status, as that was a new direction that many countries were moving towards for recording identification documents.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CERD08011E