NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION DISCUSS STRENGTHENING ROLE OF NGOS IN WORK OF COMMITTEE
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning heard statements from a series of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on how best to improve the interaction and cooperation between non-governmental organizations and the Committee.
In advance of the Committee’s review of the periodic reports of eleven countries, NGO representatives were invited to speak about the role of non-governmental organizations in the reporting process, including in relation to the follow-up procedure, modalities for this participation, experiences and best practices of non-governmental organizations, and how the work of the Committee could better impact the work of NGOs at the local level. Representatives of NGOs spoke about, among other things, the importance of including NGOs in the preparation of States parties’ reports; reprisals against people who provided information to the Committee; the possibility of providing webcasts of Committee proceedings; the need for formal meetings between NGOs and the Committee; and the possibility of having field visits from Committee members to ensure follow-up to concluding observations.
The representatives of the following NGOs took the floor: Human Rights Law Resource Centre; Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action; Amnesty International; International Service for Human Rights; Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities; International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism; Human Rights Watch; TAMAZGHA; Réseau Amazigh Pour la Citoyenneté; Centro de Estudios Legal y Social; and Comitato per la Promozione e Protezione dei Diritti Umani.
During its seventy seventh session, the Committee will examine the situation of racial discrimination in Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, France, Iran, Morocco, Romania, Slovenia and Uzbekistan.
The next meeting of the Committee will be at 3 p.m. Tuesday, 3 August when it will begin consideration of the combined fourteenth and fifteenth periodic report of El Salvador (CERD/C/SLV/15). The Committee is scheduled to consider the reports of El Salvador for the next two meetings, concluding on Wednesday, 4 August at 1 p.m.
Opening Statement
PATRICK THORNBERRY, Committee Expert, in introductory remarks, said that unlike other conventions, the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination did not expressly outline a role for non-governmental organizations. Nonetheless, the Committee was entitled to look at alternative sources of information when evaluating country reports and non-governmental organizations provided invaluable help in that regard. The Committee looked at this information with a critical eye, but it was important to take into account information from non-governmental organizations and civil society groups so the Committee would be looking at ways to incorporate the work of these groups as they moved forward.
General Statements
EMILY HOWIE, of Human Rights Law Resource Centre, an Australian non-governmental organization, said that they often did not have the opportunity to find everything that happened with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, but they needed to know how it worked and how to access its procedures. Ms. Howie said her intervention would focus on how to improve the accessibility of the Committee to help national organizations keep up with its working methods. It would be helpful to have guidance on reporting guidelines for non-governmental organizations, not just for States parties. It would also be valuable if the Committee provided time for a formal briefing from non-governmental organizations before countries were reviewed which would allow the opportunity for constructive dialogue and these groups could provide information in a timely manner. In terms of early warning procedures, Ms. Howie said some basic administrative measures would help, including acknowledgement of complaints received and information on what action would be taken next.
LES MALEZER, Chairperson of Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, said he wanted to address challenges that might be present for the Committee in terms of indigenous peoples. Mr. Malezer said that indigenous people with the right to self-determination had been overlooked at the time that treaties were negotiated and signed so committees often heard from States, but not from indigenous peoples. Could this Committee consider whether indigenous people had the right to speak before the Committee on matters that affected them? This included loss of political and legal voice in the State and loss of land to the State and development of their lands by the State. Mr. Malezer asked whether Committee members were still available to do country visits to help create awareness of indigenous rights and address any breaches of those rights.
TANIA BALDWIN PASK, of Amnesty International, wanted to focus her intervention on the modalities for non-governmental organization participation. The Universal Periodic Review provided an interesting model of how this could be done by requiring consultation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for the preparation of State reports. There was no reason why this process could not be applied, with minor adjustments, to the treaty body reports. In terms of making the most of NGO material, a formal way should be established to make sure this information was disseminated throughout the treaty body system and thus made available to the widest possible audience. Ms. Pask also suggested that a formal time be set aside for a meeting with NGOs and the Committee, as well as the use of technology such as Skype, to allow NGOs that could not travel and stay in Geneva to participate in the debate. Webcasts and podcasts would also be helpful in this regard. The last point Ms. Pask made was on the issue of reprisals against people who brought information to treaty bodies; the Committee might want to think about taking up this matter with the States parties concerned and pass this information on to the High Commissioner as well.
KATRINE THOMASEN, of International Service for Human Rights, said that in relation to information and outreach to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the International Service for Human Rights appreciated the information that was available ion the Committee website, but would also welcome other avenues of information such as webcasts. Formal meetings for NGOs would also be appreciated as well as video conferencing for NGOs that did not have the resources to attend meetings in Geneva. Ms. Thomasen also requested information on the best way for organizations to provide follow-up information to the Committee.
PATRICK YU, of Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities, said that non-governmental organizations played a crucial role in monitoring the implementation of international conventions. Mr. Yu said that key national organizations should work together to present information on topics to the Committee as this would help to prioritize issues collectively and present a united front to the Committee. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) could also hold seminars and roundtable discussions to help formalize approaches to issues so that the Committee did not receive confusing messages from numerous groups. In terms of follow-up procedure, Mr. Yu said the State party should take responsibility for informing the public of the Committee’s concluding observations. NGOs also had the obligation to monitor the implementation of the concluding observations and they should report back to the Secretariat as soon as possible if measures were not undertaken to address issues outlined in the concluding observations.
DAISNKE SHIRANE, of International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, said that the establishment of a pre-session working group would help to strengthen non-governmental organizations’ (NGOs) submissions to the Committee. For representatives from NGOs that needed a visa to come to Geneva, it would be helpful to have a list of countries that would be under review as it often took a long time to secure visas and plan trips to Geneva. Mr. Shirane also suggested that session reports be published before the Committee’s annual report, as this would help local NGOs keep abreast of happenings and new developments with the Committee. Also, any field visits by Committee Members would be of a great help as they could meet with NGO representatives on the ground.
JULIE de RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, noted that few Committees offered non-governmental organizations (NGOs) a formal role in the reporting process, but she hoped that this would change now that the Universal Periodic Review had required NGO consultation for the preparation of reports. Ms. de Rivero said it would be helpful to have meetings with experts to discuss general issues such as questions of follow-up, complimentary standards, defamation of religions, traditional values and interaction with human rights. These were very important debates and it would be wonderful to meet with Committee Experts to gain from their expertise and the NGOs could also offer their impressions of the situation on the ground. Ms. de Rivero also brought up the issue of reprisals and the need to address violence against people who worked to provide information to the Committee.
MASIN FERKAL, of TAMAZGHA, said that Tamazgha worked to protect the Berber people and had always had a good working relationship with the Committee and the Secretariat, but he agreed with many of the comments made by colleagues at other non-governmental organizations. He said that States often gave information to the Committee during interactive dialogue that was not included in their report, and was not always accurate so the non-governmental organization (NGO) would welcome the opportunity to provide written responses to this information after the interactive dialogue. Also, it would be helpful if NGOs were aware that they could participate in these processes, even informally, as many were not aware that their voice could be heard and they could participate.
YOUSSEF LAARAJ, of Réseau Amazigh Pour la Citoyenneté, also encouraged more access to the Committee via a more formal process. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) often worked in a climate that made access to information difficult and their activities were often hampered. In terms of training and development at the grass roots level, it was not always possible for NGOs to submit a parallel report because they did not have the resources for data collection and monitoring to create such reports. Only a few NGOs had the resources to do this, so a heightened awareness for these groups about the various mechanisms available to them through the Committee could be helpful. It would also be helpful to translate the Convention into local languages, even those not acknowledged by the State party so that people were more aware of their rights. Mr. Laaraj said field visits were essential in bolstering the activities of NGOs and ensuring follow-up. An NGO database would also be helpful in the exchange of best practices and ideas between NGOs.
MARIANA DUARTE, of Centro de Estudios Legal y Social, agreed with her many colleagues that a formal meeting process such as the one used by the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families would be greatly appreciated. She also supported the idea of having State reports based on the model of that used by the Committee Against Torture. It would also be advisable to have a permanent dialogue with the Committee in terms of implementation of recommendations; this was an ongoing and continual process and should include non-governmental organizations which could monitor what had actually been done by the State to implement concluding observations. Ms. Duarte also agreed that field visits would be very useful in terms of follow-up.
CAROLA CARAZZONE, of Comitato per la Promozione e Protezione dei Diritti Umani, recommended that the Committee reconsider the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the follow-up procedure. This would enhance the transparency and NGO awareness in terms of the State submission on follow-up procedure. Breakfast and lunch meetings could not be the only opportunity for NGOs to meet with the Committee, so Ms. Carazzone advocated that more formal time be set aside to brief the Committee. Meeting with NGOs before the adoption of the list of issues would also contribute to a more robust review process.
Interactive Dialogue
In the interactive dialogue, one Committee Member noted that some of the suggestions outlined by the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) would require additional funds, and the Committee had no control over funding matters, but it encouraged the States parties to include the NGOs and the Committee also welcomed their participation. Another Committee Member said the Committee could be helpful in having NGOs become involved in the preparation of reports and it was important that it do so, as well as in the follow-up procedure. NGOs could also play a role in making people aware of their rights and helping to increase the number of communications received by the Committee.
In terms of establishing more formal meetings, a Committee Member said that this body did not have pre-session meetings like other Committees, but meetings that happened at the beginning of the session such as this one, might be a possibility. The Committee usually met with NGOs during the lunch break before they reviewed individual countries. The Committee Expert agreed that people who cooperated with the Committee should be protected from reprisals, so perhaps the United Nations could find the ways and means to provide such protection.
A Committee Member pointed out that the Committee always looked at how much non-governmental organization participation went into the preparation of reports, but perhaps this could be strengthened and non-governmental organizations could be included earlier in the drafting process. This Committee Member went on to say that through the breakfast and lunch meetings, NGOs could get the latest information on a country to a Committee, but if there was a way to strengthen this process it would certainly be helpful.
A representative from the Centre for Civil and Political Rights said that in terms of establishing formal meetings with NGOs, video conferencing or Skype could be possibilities in linking NGOs with the Committee.
A Committee Member said NGOs were the cornerstone of human rights and thus their relationship with the treaty body system had to be strengthened. In term of training, capacity building at the local level and the need to ensure the treaty body mechanisms were more widely known in countries, the Committee Member encouraged NGOs to make a contribution in raising awareness in these areas. Another Committee Member thought it was important to point out that NGOs could always send the Committee information between sessions and they did not have to wait until the Committee was in session to raise concerns.
A representative of the International Disability Alliance, a large global network that operated as an umbrella organization, thanked the Committee for all the work they had done and for organizing this meeting today. The representative said that the organization was following the early warning and follow-up procedures very carefully and it was also working on improving the access of persons with disabilities to the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and in capacity building for persons with disabilities internationally so things like webcasting could have accessibility built in from the start so the representative asked that this perspective be included as the Committee considered new initiatives.
Concluding Remarks
PATRICK THORNBERRY, Committee Member, thanked the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for their many interesting suggestions, particularly regarding exploring the use of technology. The Committee was familiar with many of the issues raised by NGOs, but the one element of surprise for him and for many other Committee Members was the issue of reprisals. Mr. Thornberry said that the Committee was always willing to improve its working methods and if it received verifiable information from organizations it would improve the output of the Committee.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CERD10/018E