Experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Welcome Monaco’s Adoption of Anti-Discrimination Legislation, Raise Questions on Racial Profiling and Acquiring Nationality
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today concluded its consideration of the combined seventh to ninth periodic report of Monaco, with Committee Experts welcoming the State’s strengthening of anti-discrimination legislation, while raising questions on racial profiling and acquiring Monegasque nationality.
Regine Esseneme, Committee Expert and Rapporteur, said the Committee welcomed the strengthening of the legislative and institutional framework, in particular with the adoption of law no. 1.478 of 12 November 2019, which repealed the penalty of banishment, and made racist motives an aggravating circumstance for certain offences; and the adoption of the Sovereign Ordinance no. 4.524 of 30 October 2013 establishing a High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights, Freedoms and Mediation, amended by Sovereign Ordinance no. 10.845 of 1 October 2024, which extended its scope of action to examine cases of discrimination and refer them to the courts.
Jian Guan, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said according to information received by the Committee, there had been allegations of racial profiling during gatherings in the context of major events, for example car rallies. What measures had been taken to prevent and expressly prohibit racial profiling by law enforcement officers? What specific disciplinary and correctional measures had been undertaken to investigate cases of racial profiling and punish them?
Mr. Guan said according to the information available, the policy of access to nationality in Monaco was restrictive. According to the law on nationality, persons who had acquired nationality due to marriage could not transmit their nationality. How did the State party fulfil its obligations under the Convention on Statelessness? Could information be provided on the legal framework governing the acquisition of Monegasque nationality and the measures taken to facilitate the acquisition of nationality by foreign nationals living and working in Monaco?
The delegation said in Monegasque law, there was a prohibition of racial profiling. Data regarding ethnicity could not be used unless an individual had provided their consent. If information on a person’s ethnicity was disclosed, there could be a sentence imposed or a fine. Impartiality needed to be the hallmark of all police activity, and this was enshrined within the Ethics Code.
Monaco allowed for dual nationality, the delegation said. Options for acquiring nationality were limited by law. The law on nationality was based on the provision of a 1995 law. Anybody born to a Monegasque father or mother automatically acquired nationality. A Monegasque mother could also pass down nationality if she had been naturalised, or if her parents were Monegasque. Those acquiring Monegasque nationality through marriage were not required to denounce their previous nationality. The Prince was the sole authority to stipulate naturalisation.
Introducing the report, Carole Lanteri, Permanent Representative of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said due to its demography, identity and history, the Principality of Monaco was a land of tolerance; 140 nationalities coexisted peacefully on a territory of two square kilometres. Monegasques represented only one quarter of the total population of Monaco. Monegasque law prohibited and punished all forms of racial discrimination, seeking to cover the grounds of discrimination referred to in the Convention. According to the Constitution, all Monegasque nationals were equal before the law and foreigners enjoyed the same rights as nationals. Monaco welcomed the fact that complaints of racial discrimination, prosecutions and judgments were rare in Monaco.
In concluding remarks, Ms. Esseneme thanked the delegation of Monaco for the fruitful and constructive dialogue. The Committee would use the information provided to draw up recommendations.
Ms. Lanteri thanked the Committee for the dialogue. Monaco looked forward to receiving the Committee’s recommendations and concluding observations and would do its utmost to address and enact them.
The delegation of Monaco consisted of representatives of the Department of External Relations and Cooperation; the Department of Social Affairs and Health; the Directorate of Public Security; the Legal Affairs Department; the Department of External Relations and Cooperation; the Directorate of Judicial Services; and the Permanent Mission of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Monaco after the conclusion of its one hundred and fourteenth session on 13 December. The programme of work and other documents related to the session can be found here. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Monday, 2 December at 3 p.m. to consider the combined twelfth to fourteenth periodic report of Armenia (CERD/C/ARM/12-14).
Report
The Committee has before it the combined seventh to ninth periodic report of Monaco (CERD/C/MCO/7-9).
Presentation of Report
CAROLE LANTERI, Permanent Representative of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said due to its demography, identity and history, the Principality of Monaco was a land of tolerance; 140 nationalities coexisted peacefully on a territory of two square kilometres. Monegasques represented only one quarter of the total population of Monaco. Monaco was a peaceful European+, Mediterranean State, which aspired to sustainable development and respect for human rights for all. Monegasque law prohibited and punished all forms of racial discrimination, seeking to cover the grounds of discrimination referred to in the Convention. According to the Constitution, all Monegasque nationals were equal before the law and foreigners enjoyed the same rights as nationals. The hierarchy of norms in Monaco placed international treaties above domestic laws and norms.
Act no. 1.299 of 15 July 2005 on freedom of public expression provided for the criminal offence of incitement to hatred or violence against a person or group of persons on the basis of their origin, ethnicity, race or religion. Under law no. 1.478 of 12 November 2019, a racist motive had become a new exacerbating circumstance, which was duly factored in when violence was committed. A racist motive also constituted an aggravating circumstance in cases of bullying in the school environment.
Monaco welcomed the fact that complaints of racial discrimination, prosecutions and judgments were rare in Monaco. This should not be interpreted as stemming from insufficient information for victims about their rights, the inaccessibility of procedures, or a lack of confidence in the police and judicial authorities. Access to justice was free and easy and citizens, residents and non-residents had a trusting relationship with the police force. The High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights and Mediation, created in 2013, had seen its scope extended by Sovereign Ordinance no. 10.845 of 1 October 2024.
The Monegasque Institute for the Training of the Judicial Professions was created in 2021, providing continuous training for judges, including in human dignity and the protection of the fundamental rights of all persons. The Monegasque Code of Medical Ethics required medical professionals to respect the accessibility of care for all, regardless of their origin. In the field of education, no distinction was made between pupils and free access to school was ensured without any discrimination. This also applied to access to social services and social and financial benefits.
Ms. Lanteri said Monaco strongly condemned racial discrimination, reiterated full commitment to its elimination throughout the world, and reaffirmed its attention to ensuring that cases of racial discrimination did not occur on its territory.
Questions by a Committee Expert
REGINE ESSENEME, Committee Expert and Rapporteur, said the State party report was expected in 2012 and was submitted to the Committee in 2021, nine years late. The dialogue would allow the Committee to assess the progress made by the State party since 2010 to date in the implementation of the Convention, as well as its concluding observations. The Committee welcomed the strengthening of the legislative and institutional framework, in particular with the adoption of law no. 1.478 of 12 November 2019, which repealed the penalty of banishment, and made racist motives an aggravating circumstance for certain offences; and the adoption of the Sovereign Ordinance no. 4.524 of 30 October 2013 establishing a High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights, Freedoms and Mediation, amended by Sovereign Ordinance no. 10.845 of 1 October 2024, which extended its scope of action to examine cases of discrimination and refer them to the courts.
The information provided by the State on the demographic composition of the population was limited to the results of the 2016 census and did not include information on the composition of its population disaggregated by ethnic origin.
What measures were being taken to strengthen the data collection system, including ethnic and national origin variables, as well as the use of the principle of self-identification, to have more detailed information on the specific difficulties of certain groups, in particular regarding racial discrimination and socio-economic inequalities?
Since the publication of Sovereign Ordinance no. 11.931 of 23 April 1996 making the Convention enforceable, had it been invoked by the courts and legal officials? In how many cases had the provisions of the Convention been invoked and directly applied by national courts or by other dispute resolution bodies such as the Office of the High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights, Freedoms and Mediation?
Since its creation in 2021, had the Monegasque Institute for the Training of the Judicial Professions organised initial and continuing training sessions for staff and members of the judicial professions on the application of international human rights conventions? What measures were being taken to raise awareness of the Convention among rights holders, human rights defenders and law enforcement officials? Had the State party taken any measures to withdraw its reservations to the Convention?
Monegasque law did not provide for a definition of racial discrimination. On what legal basis were cases of racial discrimination dealt with by the courts and other non-judicial bodies? What steps were being taken to adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation that contained a clear definition of racial discrimination, which covered all the grounds of discrimination in the Convention? What did “unjustified discrimination,” used by the State party in its report mean?
According to the State party, in almost 10 years, from 2008 to 2017, only 15 alleged acts of racism gave rise to police investigation. Only four cases had been recorded over the last three years. Could information be provided on these cases, including the nature of the facts, the perpetrators and the victims, as well as the legal consequences and reparations granted.
While congratulating Monaco on the adoption of law no. 1.527 of 7 July 2022 amending law no. 975 on the status of civil servants, the Committee noted that not all the grounds of discrimination set out in the Convention were included. Could a public servant who was discriminated against on grounds other than those provided for in the law invoke the Convention to obtain compensation? How did cooperation with the High Commissioner and the judicial system work? What measures were being taken to ensure that criminal legislation on discrimination and hate speech and hate crimes covered all the grounds of discrimination in the Convention? What concrete measures had the State party taken to prevent and punish acts of racial discrimination and racist hate speech committed by public officials?
Law no. 1.383 of 2 August 2011 for digital principality punished hate speech on the Internet; what measures had been taken to give effect to this law? In implementing this law, how many cases relating to hate speech and hate crimes had been dealt with by the administrative, civil and criminal courts? Was there a system to record and monitor hate crimes and hate speech?
Did associations working on issues of racial discrimination exist in Monaco? Had the State set up a policy, legislative or other framework to encourage the training of human rights defenders and facilitate their work, including in the field of combatting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance? Which non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations contributed to the implementation of the Committee's latest concluding observations and to the preparation of the report?
The Committee understood that the Government of Monaco had taken decisions to ban an association for Jehovah's Witnesses and that despite the Supreme Court annulling this decision of the Government on 18 February 2019, this religious association was still not allowed to carry out its activities. Was this organization still prohibited from carrying out its activities? What justified this ban and what was the current state of this case?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said data in Monaco was disaggregated by sex, with some data being segregated pursuant to nationality. No data collection method was based on the principle of self-identification, including belonging to a particular ethnic or national group. Given the size of the population, health and care services were responsible for identifying the needs of individuals on a case-by-case basis.
There was no definition of racial discrimination in Monaco, but this did not mean it was not punishable under certain provisions of the law. There was a whole series of laws relating to preventing hate speech. The law from 2019 set up a new aggravating circumstance when violence was committed due to the victim’s ethnicity. There was a principle of non-discrimination applied across all civil servants. This was now enshrined in the contractual texts entered into by the State. The State must protect civil servants against defamation and any attacks, including those relating to racial and ethnic origins.
Article 15 of law 1355 concerning associations ruled that an association could be established if it upheld a range of different preconditions, including respecting the rights of all individuals. Any signs, symbols or logos representing xenophobic or racist beliefs were forbidden from sporting arenas. The article on the protection of digital data amended and prohibited the release of data which might relate to the ethnic, religious, or philosophical origins of any individual.
Monaco brought into force international legal treaties through a dualist system. This meant that after the ratification of these treaties, it was necessary to have a Sovereign Order, which would be incorporated in the domestic legal order and then invoked by the judiciary. This was the case with the Convention. Trainings were organised in 2022 which targeted the importance of protecting human rights in any trial or process. The training system set up for 2023 for lawyers constituted a traditional training, which enabled lawyers to have access to human resources and additional training as necessary.
The Roman Catholic religion was the State religion; however, Monaco was not a theocracy. The State recognised the freedom of all to practice religion. There were other religious entities, including a synagogue, operating in Monaco. A Jehovah’s Witness association was established in 2015, and a request was lodged in 2016 to record it as an association, which was rejected. This was due to the sect nature of the association and the possible damage this could cause within the public sphere. Since January 2024, there had been two cases with a racial context dealt with by Monaco services.
Questions by Committee Experts
REGINE ESSENEME, Committee Expert and Rapporteur, said since 2021, the police had dealt with six cases of racial discrimination; what was the result of these cases? Were formal investigations opened and what were the outcomes?
A Committee Expert asked if the State party could explain its reservations to the Convention?
FAITH DIKELEDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert and Follow-Up Rapporteur, asked if the question on reservations could be addressed.
Another Expert asked where things currently stood with the review of Sovereign Decree 534?
A Committee Expert said there was an obligation of the State to ban groups which propagated hate speech and there was a duty to criminalise these groups. How was article 4 not being obliged with in this regard?
An Expert asked about the term “unjustified discrimination” used in the report? Did this suggest there were justified forms of discrimination?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said there was no incompatibility between international law and domestic law. What might occur was that in certain cases, the State chose to resort to means or tools which differed slightly, to achieve the same outcome. At this stage, Monaco did not envisage withdrawing its reservations to the Convention. There were provisions which favoured Monegasque nationals over others in the principality because nationals were a minority in their own country.
Employees could go to the labour tribunal when there were grounds for discrimination at their workplace. Given the small size of Monaco, those working in the labour market knew one another and if there were any cases of discrimination, they could not be concealed.
Monegasque law did not have any specific provision on racial discrimination. However, the Constitution provided that all persons were equal under the law, and all foreigners had the same rights as nationals. The Prosecutor General’s Office had received no formal complaints related to racial discrimination. A circular would be sent which would allow more detailed statistics to be provided by the Prosecutor’s Office.
Questions by Committee Experts
JIAN GUAN, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, asked if the State party planned to supplement or amend other specific legal provisions, so as to bring its legal system closer to the provisions of the Convention? What measures had been taken to adopt a national plan of action to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance? Could information be provided on the measures adopted and the programme of activities organised in the State party on the occasion of the International Decade of People of African Descent?
The State party, in its report, had indicated that an institution called "the Office of the High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights, Freedoms and Mediation" was established which functioned as a national human rights institution. The State party's efforts to continuously improve the competencies and functions of the Office of the High Commissioner were welcomed, and progress had been recognised by the Committee. But the functions of the institution were still weak.
What was the rationale of the State party to not carry out any improvements to the Office? What measures were planned to strengthen the mandate and activities of the Office of the High Commissioner in the prevention and punishment of racial discrimination? Could information on complaints of racial discrimination, including on the basis of national origin, received by the Office of the High Commissioner be provided, and on the follow-up given to them? What steps had the State party taken to adopt a legislative framework in the field of discrimination, including racial discrimination, which would prevent such discrimination, better protect victims, and enable the Office of the High Commissioner to respond to these complaints more effectively?
Could it be inferred that Monaco had still not adopted a law against all forms of racial discrimination? Could additional information be provided on the administrative and judicial remedies available to denounce or complain about cases of racial discrimination and related offences? What measures had been introduced to sensitise the population of the State party and non-citizens of their rights under the Convention and the remedies available to them, as well as information on measures to ensure access to justice in cases of racial discrimination, including the filing of complaints and access to legal aid?
The Committee noted that the State party's report did not mention any judgements handed down in cases of racial discrimination in Monaco. However, even if there was no racist phenomenon in a country, the law and criminal justice could also play an educational role about preventive action. Could updated information be provided on cases of racial discrimination and related offences filed with the judiciary or any other national institution, including the Office of the High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights, Freedoms and Mediation, and on the results of the investigations carried out, the sanctions imposed and the reparations granted to victims?
According to information received by the Committee, there had been allegations of racial profiling during gatherings in the context of major events, for example car rallies. There were also some cases where individuals of African descent or Asian origin had been subjected to derogatory remarks with racist connotations, which was sometimes combined with their access to restaurants and clubs being restricted. What measures had been taken to prevent and expressly prohibit racial profiling by law enforcement officers? What specific disciplinary and correctional measures had been undertaken to investigate cases of racial profiling and punish them?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Sovereign Decree for the statute and mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner had been reformed. The re-founding of the Office of the High Commissioner meant it was better positioned to meet some of the Paris Principles. The High Commissioner served for a period of four years, renewable one time. The Office was a fully independent body and did not receive any orders or directions from Government services. The Office of the High Commissioner was not responsible for hearing labour disputes between Government services and their staff, and it could not overturn a ruling of the courts. It could interact with civil society and work with organizations which had a similar role to itself. The Office of the High Commissioner also worked alongside the State organs for dialogues around human rights. It reported on its work and these reports were made publicly accessible.
Once a victim of a crime had lodged a complaint, the victim would receive a brochure which contained detailed information on their rights. Brochures were available in multiple languages and could be translated into the language of the victim. If the victim did not speak French, an interpreter would be provided at all stages of the investigation. All victims were eligible to receive free legal assistance and interpretation. In 2024, there had only been one complaint on the grounds of racism, which was closed due to a lack of evidence. There were two such cases reported in 2022; one was closed, and one was still being investigated.
In Monegasque law, there was a prohibition of racial profiling. Data regarding ethnicity could not be used unless an individual had provided their consent. If information on a person’s ethnicity was disclosed, there could be a sentence imposed or a fine. Impartiality needed to be the hallmark of all police activity, and this was enshrined within the Ethics Code. There was a General Inspectorate of Police Services, which was established by a Sovereign Decree dating back to 2006. This Inspectorate had the mandate and responsibility to conduct internal investigations aimed at guaranteeing and ensuring that the Police Code and the Ethics Code were upheld by the police.
Questions by Committee Experts
JIAN GUAN, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said it was welcome that the Office of the High Commissioner had been re-founded from the ground up. It was positive that a body was in place which was more equative to what a national human rights institution would be. How many staff were serving in the High Commissioner’s Office?
REGINE ESSENEME, Committee Expert and Rapporteur, said civil proceedings could be opened to provide for reparation or remedy. Were the provisions of the Civil Code effective and enforced in practice? Had there been any cases of discrimination brought before civil courts in which reparations had been granted? If the Prosecutor General received a case which was criminal, what then happened so an action was undertaken?
A Committee Expert asked if the new changes made to the mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner were in line with the Paris Principles? If not, then why not?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said civil remedy and recourse was available in Monaco. When someone was the victim of racial discrimination and lodged a complaint, if the perpetrator was convicted, there was the possibility for them to provide civil compensation and remedies to the victim. Legal aid was provided until the end of the criminal proceedings.
There had been no complaints or reports of racist acts made against anyone belonging to public law enforcement bodies. A website was run by the Government, which could be used by people to lodge complaints.
The budget of the Office of the High Commissioner was voted on by the National Council, which was independent of the legislature. Currently, the Office of the High Commissioner was in the process of reviewing its requirements regarding its new mandates.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert asked if the State party engaged in training and education on racial profiling?
Another Expert said a civil process was in place to deal with offences. If somebody was arrested and searched, and they believed this was on the basis of discriminatory purposes and they lodged a complaint, could they bring a civil case forward?
REGINE ESSENEME, Committee Expert and Rapporteur, asked if the Public Prosecutor could decide to suspend a case?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said police officers received two years of training on police ethics, which aimed to raise their awareness regarding human rights. This was enshrined within the Ethics Code that police officers were required to learn.
There was a huge number of associations in Monaco in different spheres. The Government worked closely with civil society organizations, including one on AIDS. An association was recently established to uphold the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons.
Legal aid went beyond the criminal process; it did not just stop when a conviction was handed down.
Questions by Committee Experts
NOURREDINE AMIR, Committee Expert, said it was a delight to participate in this dialogue with Monaco as he had been the Rapporteur to the State’s initial review before the Committee in 2010. He was happy that he was 84 and still able to participate in the work of the Committee.
REGINE ESSENEME, Committee Expert and Rapporteur, said under the Constitution, "foreigners in the Principality enjoyed all public and private rights which were not formally reserved to nationals.” Was there a list of rights that non-nationals could not enjoy? What guaranteed the proper application of the text to prevent national preference from being a source of injustice and discrimination for non-citizens, particularly in basic social services?
What measures had the State party taken to facilitate the integration of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers into society? Had the State adopted a policy or strategy to assess the effective enjoyment by non-nationals of their economic, social and cultural rights? Could information be provided on the mechanism regarding family reunification of non-nationals? Given that nationals represented only 22.5 per cent of the population in the last population census in 2019, what measures had been taken to ensure that non-nationals had access to basic social services, including social assistance and free education without discrimination?
What mechanism had the State party put in place to ensure that all children of school age were effectively enrolled in school throughout the country? What happened to children whose parents were in an irregular situation and were not enrolled in public schools; were those children deprived of education? What was the status of the adoption process of bill no. 1036 on the fight against bullying and violence in schools?
How did the medical coverage differ from health insurance? According to the State party, State medical assistance provided health coverage for residents living in the State for more than five years, whose total household income did not exceed a certain ceiling. What was the amount of this ceiling and the mechanism by which it was determined? Had the State party considered implementing an alternative mechanism to reduce inequality? Non-Monegasques who had resided in the Principality for less than five years were not able to stay there without a certain level of income. What was this income level and what was the legislation that had set it? What was the guaranteed minimum wage in Monaco? What happened to people who did not meet this condition? Were they expelled from the territory?
In view of the continuing pressure on the Monegasque real estate market, what measures had been taken by the State party in this area, so as not to create unjustified differentiation between different groups of foreigners, thereby pushing them to live outside Monaco?
What was the proportion of non-nationals working in the public sector? What measures had been taken to ensure that the application of the principle of priority employment for Monegasques did not lead to cases of discrimination in recruitment? What measures had been taken to prohibit unfair dismissals of non-citizens?
What steps had been taken to make migrant workers aware of their rights, including complaint mechanisms, and to facilitate their access to them? Had the State party acceded to International Labour Organization Convention No. 111 (1958) concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation and to the European Social Charter? If not, what was the reason for the hold-up? There were reports that many foreigners living outside Monaco, in France or Switzerland, worked there as domestic staff without being declared. What measures had been taken to make social support more accessible to those persons?
Sovereign Ordinance no. 3.153 of 19 March 1964 on the conditions of entry and residence of foreigners in the Principality, was amended in November 2020, providing for severe fines and prison sentences, as well as expulsion against foreigners in an irregular situation. What was being done by the State party to bring its national legislation into line with its international obligations to decriminalise irregular migration? The State party carried out refoulements of foreigners on grounds of danger, and between 2018 and 2021, 392 persons had been returned. What were the reasons for these new deportations and what were the nationalities of the people deported? There had been reports of violence against migrant women whose residency status depended on that of the violent partner. What measures had been adopted to effectively protect this category of women?
Monegasques were a minority in Monaco. However, the larger number of non-citizens did not have the right to vote. As a result, around three quarters of the population did not participate in public life in Monaco. Did the State plan to open up the possibility for non-citizens to participate in public life, particularly elections?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Monaco was firmly committed to equality and combatting all forms of discrimination. In a 2006 decree, the High Court stated there must be identical treatment for people in an identical position. Any action against foreigners must be founded on objective analysis rather than discriminatory grounds. The State aimed to perfect the legal framework to have better jurisprudence.
The Government offered a wide range of social benefits. The only limit generally related to being a national resident of the Principality. When an individual resided in Monaco for less than five years and they needed access to social support, they were guided to partner social services, including the Monaco Red Cross, which could provide food packages and vouchers and were able to support individuals to seek housing. The Medical Ethics Code was incumbent on all medical staff and obligated them to provide care for all individuals, without any discrimination and under any circumstance.
The Government had enacted specific provisions which allowed migrants to have access to medical coverage, social assistance and education for their children. These provisions were recently enacted, including a specific set of provisions for those displaced from Ukraine. The Red Cross also provided regular information to ensure that there was regular and targeted follow-up of these provisions for migrants. Wide ranging awareness campaigns were also rolled out to support these provisions. A handbook for Ukrainian refugees was drafted to outline what care and services were available to them. When dealing with unaccompanied children in Monaco, they were hosted in a special accommodation, and benefitted from specialised care and support.
Monegasques were a minority among the resident wage-earning population of their own country. Of the 58,000 people working in the Monaco private sector, only around 1,000 were Monegasque; 226 labour inspections were carried out in 2023.
Education was free and compulsory for all children, not just nationals. All residents in Monaco had free access to education.
Questions by Committee Experts
REGINE ESSENEME, Committee Expert and Rapporteur, asked about the education status of children whose parents were in an irregular situation. What happened in these circumstances? Did these children fall through the cracks?
A Committee Expert welcomed the State party’s response about the campaign to raise awareness for those who had been victims of violence. What was the State party’s response when someone did not have the right to reside in the State party?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that cases of children whose parents were in an irregular situation had never arisen in Monaco. If this occurred, it could be dealt with on an ad-hoc reactive basis, due to the country’s small population. In the past, Monaco had hosted people fleeing crises, and if there had been unaccompanied children, measures had been enacted to protect these children and provide them with health and education services.
To date, Monaco had 5,600 pupils out of a population of 38,000 inhabitants. Of these pupils, 80 per cent of the total went to public schools. Of these pupils, only two in 10 were Monegasque nationals.
Any return or refoulment was motivated by the behaviour of the person subject to the return order. It was only taken when there were sufficient grounds to do so. Appeals could be lodged.
Priority for employment was not tantamount to the right to employment, and this held true for Monegasque nationals. When priority was given to a national for a post, the post needed to be vacant and the Monegasque national needed to have the aptitude for this post. There was robust jurisprudence to respond to cases of unfair dismissal.
Family reunification was not provided for in law in the Principality of Monaco.
A Sovereign Decree stated that those who were victims of trafficking had the right to receive information on their rights, and should be informed by police of their rights to receive reparations and receive support from the social welfare services of the State, among others.
For women who were victims of violence, there was no risk weighing of possible deportation if they were not Monegasque nationals. They had nothing to fear in terms of being deported.
Monaco was not a Member State of the International Labour Organization and it was not anticipated that the State would become a member in the near future. Monaco only signed up to international instruments if the country was fully able to implement them.
Questions by Committee Experts
REGINE ESSENEME, Committee Expert and Rapporteur, asked if an individual in a regular situation in Monaco could bring their family to the country? Was this possible?
A Committee Expert asked what happened to violent men; were they prosecuted and what were the statistics? What steps were being taken by the State to tackle that phenomenon?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the questions were straying beyond the mandate of the Convention; men who committed violence were prosecuted. Women were given shelter regardless of their status or nationality. To become a resident in Monaco, one needed to show that they were in a position to rent or buy an apartment in Monaco, or to be housed by someone. The individual had to be able to demonstrate they could live in Monaco and that they had sufficient resources. Those working in Monaco could bring their family to live with them without any problem.
When foreign nationals were applying to be nationals in Monaco, this did not exclude the possibility that the family members could present their own application. Each member of the family was dealt with on an individual basis.
Questions by a Committee Expert
JIAN GUAN, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said in view of the fact that the number of foreign employees was much higher than that of Monegasque nationals, it was preferable for the State party to consider taking measures to find a balance in the areas of protection of public and private rights between Monegasque and non-Monegasque nationals. Could information be provided on the legal framework governing the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, in particular with regard to the enjoyment of this right by non-nationals? What measures had been taken to revise the legislation on trade unions?
According to the information available, the policy of access to nationality in Monaco was restrictive. The acquisition of nationality by sovereign ordinance of naturalisation, under the law on nationality, was rare and discretionary. There were 43 cases conferred in 2020, 55 in 2019, and 32 in 2018. The law on nationality stipulated that "Naturalisation was conferred by Sovereign Decree after an investigation into the morality and circumstances of the applicant". Did Monaco have an authoritative interpretation of the term "morality”? Could the term “circumstances” also be explained?
According to the law on nationality, persons who had acquired nationality due to marriage could not transmit their nationality. How did the State party fulfil its obligations under the Convention on Statelessness? Could information be provided on the legal framework governing the acquisition of Monegasque nationality and the measures taken to facilitate the acquisition of nationality by foreign nationals living and working in Monaco?
According to available information, there was a high demand for foreign labour in Monaco and certain sectors, such as construction, hospitality, catering, domestic work and work on private yachts, which mainly employed foreign labour, were considered to be at risk of labour exploitation, which created opportunities for human trafficking. The State party had not yet reported any cases of trafficking for labour exploitation. However, the absence of identified victims did not necessarily reflect the reality of the phenomenon of trafficking. The State party had made encouraging steps, including criminalising human and migrant trafficking in its domestic law, and was working on the drafting and implementation of a circular on an inter-service coordination plan, relating to the identification and care of victims of trafficking in persons.
Could the delegation provide the Committee with updated information on the measures taken to prevent and combat trafficking in persons, including for the purpose of labour exploitation? What measures were being taken to ensure that victims of trafficking were not punished for the commission of acts resulting directly from their status as victims of trafficking? Could information be provided on complaints, investigations, prosecutions, convictions, sanctions and measures for the reparation and rehabilitation of victims of trafficking? It was necessary to take legislative measures to ensure that the offence of trafficking could effectively be investigated, prosecuted and punished, including by inserting the offence into the Criminal Code. Had Monaco taken the necessary legislative measures to ensure that the offence of trafficking was incorporated into the Criminal Code.
At the present time, there was no text adopted at the national level governing the processing of asylum applications. All applications, which remained very few, were processed by the services of the Minister of State. In view of the complexity of the situation, what steps had been taken to adopt a legislative framework for the protection of refugees and asylum seekers that was in line with international standards? What measures had been taken to incorporate the principles of non-refoulement and non-discrimination, and provide for a refugee status determination procedure?
What measures had Monaco taken to promote human rights education, in particular on the Convention and the fight against racial discrimination, racism and xenophobia, in school curricula and vocational training programmes? What was the representation of migrants in textbooks and curricula at all levels, as well as on their contribution to the development and national history of the State party? What awareness-raising campaigns had been carried out to strengthen the elimination of any discriminatory practices based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said education on anti-racism, anti-xenophobia and anti-Semitism efforts occupied a major part of school programmes and curricula.
The right to belong to a trade union was a fundamental right in Monaco. Monaco was seeking to ensure greater flexibility in law in regard to trade unions. Today, many different trade unions included people who were not of Monegasque nationality.
Monaco allowed for dual nationality. Options for acquiring nationality were limited by law. The law on nationality was based on the provisions of the 1995 law. Anybody born to a Monegasque father or mother automatically acquired nationality. A Monegasque mother could also pass down nationality if she had been naturalised, or if her parents were Monegasque. Those acquiring Monegasque nationality through marriage were not required to denounce their previous nationality. Naturalisation was permitted under the Constitution. The Prince was the sole authority who could stipulate naturalisation. Naturalisation could be given to any individual over the age of 18 who had resided in Monaco for more than 10 years.
Monaco had not had any cases of trafficking. Trafficking in human beings was currently punishable by between five and 10 years in prison, and with a fine between 8,000 and 80,000 euros. In particular circumstances, a sentence of between 10 to 20 years in prison could apply. Legislation aimed to lead to the identification of possible victims of trafficking, establish time frames, and potentially issue a residency permit for victims of trafficking. Sometimes, there were cases where a person had falsified papers to obtain a work permit; this did not relate to trafficking. The circular aimed to facilitate victim identification, ensure the right to shelter and housing, provide psychological support, and combat exploitation in the labour market. The Labour Inspectorate also carried out checks to combat labour exploitation and address issues relating to work permits.
November was anti-bullying month in Monaco. National awareness raising activities and targeted activities at schools took place. This was brought into the public sphere using games and other events which resonated with young people.
Questions by Committee Experts
JIAN GUAN, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said the education system in Monaco was closely connected to the French system. Could more details on this be provided? Racial profiling was prohibited under the law in Monaco. Could the delegation clarify which law prohibited this?
A Committee Expert said Monaco had a dual citizenship system which effectively addressed the problem of statelessness. What happened if the person who got married to a citizen of Monaco was not from a country where dual citizenship was allowed? What happened if they got divorced?
Another Expert asked if information could be provided regarding the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action in the State party? Had the State party set up a formal assessment regarding that Programme?
An Expert asked what proportion of foreigners were stateless?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the curriculum used in Monegasque schools was the same as that used in France, as the majority of teachers were French. There were specific lessons added by Monaco, which aimed to help the large number of foreigners living in the country understand Monaco’s history and traditions.
No individual automatically became Monegasque by marriage. A timeframe needed to elapse, and then the person could enter a declaration to become Monegasque. If an individual’s country did not allow for dual nationality, they could simply choose not to acquire Monegasque nationality. Monaco did its utmost to avoid cases of statelessness in the country. There were 12 people who had established themselves as stateless in Monaco. One well-known stateless individual was a violinist, whose nationality had been stripped by his home country, but he had been granted a Monegasque passport and could therefore travel and perform around the world. If stateless individuals needed assistance, the relevant Government services would be mobilised and would fulfil the role for supporting stateless persons.
There were no specific plans related to the content of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.
In 2023, there were eight specific trainings in the judicial police on human trafficking. There were 600 staff serving in the Public Safety Directorate of Monaco.
Closing Remarks
FAITH DIKELEDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert and Follow-Up Rapporteur, said the Committee would adopt concluding observations after the dialogue, containing a paragraph on follow-up. This would indicate the recommendations which would need to be implemented within a year.
REGINE ESSENEME, Committee Expert and Rapporteur, thanked the delegation of Monaco for the fruitful and constructive dialogue. The Committee would use the information provided to draw up recommendations. Ms. Esseneme thanked all those involved in the dialogue and wished the delegation a safe journey home.
CAROLE LANTERI, Permanent Representative of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva, thanked the Committee for the dialogue. Monaco looked forward to receiving the Committee’s recommendations and concluding observations, and would do its utmost to address and enact them.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CERD24.019E