Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Holds Informal Meeting with States Parties to the Convention
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today held an informal meeting with States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Opening the meeting, Michal Balcerzak, Committee Chair, said this year was the sixtieth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention. This was a moment of reflection, not only on past achievements, but also on the current and future viability of the treaty body system. The Committee was facing turbulent times, and many challenges were undermining the realisation of human rights and racial equality.
Mr. Balcerzak called on States parties to renew commitment to fully respect and effectively implement obligations under international human rights law, including the Convention. Prompt action was needed to end current conflicts, address the root causes of racial discrimination, and prevent further human rights violations targeting people based on their national or ethnic origin and identity.
Régine Esseneme, Committee Vice-Chair, said the Convention was adopted by the General Assembly in 1965 and entered into force in 1969. It covered all areas of human rights and fundamental freedoms and had been ratified by 182 countries. For several years, States parties had submitted fewer reports to the Committee, often choosing to combine reports over longer periods.
The discussion with States parties addressed topics including the liquidity crisis facing the Committee and the United Nations treaty body system, cooperation with the Committee, commemoration of the Convention’s sixtieth anniversary, the Committee’s simplified reporting and individual communications procedures, hybrid dialogues, and measures to prevent racial discrimination.
Speaking in the discussion were Mexico, Finland, Belgium, Bolivia, Spain, Brazil, Venezuela, China and Cuba.
The programme of work and other documents related to the Committee’s one hundred and fifteenth 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 Friday, 25 April at 3 p.m. to hold a half-day general discussion on reparations for the injustices from the transatlantic trade of enslaved Africans, their treatment as chattel, and the ongoing harms to and crimes against people of African descent.
Opening Statements
MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Chair, said this year was the sixtieth anniversary of the entry into force of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This was a moment of reflection, not only on past achievements, but also on the current and future viability of the treaty body system. The Committee was facing turbulent times, and many challenges were undermining the realisation of human rights and racial equality.
In the last 60 years, there had been progress in the fight against racial discrimination. However, progress had not occurred at the pace and to the extent needed and expected by marginalised groups and victims of racial discrimination, and today, there were serious risks of backsliding. The Committee called on States parties to renew commitment to fully respect and effectively implement obligations under international human rights law, including the Convention. Prompt action was needed to end current conflicts, address the root causes of racial discrimination, and prevent further human rights violations targeting people based on their national or ethnic origin and identity.
The United Nations treaty body system was faced by an unprecedented crisis marked by acute financial and liquidity constraints. These challenges struck at the very core of the Committee’s ability to carry out its mandate effectively. The downsizing of resources had already begun to significantly impair the Committee’s work. Under the Convention, the expenses of the Committee were required to be borne by State parties. The current situation raised serious concerns about the sustainability of this obligation. The Committee was facing the real risk of reducing its activities, and, in a worst-case scenario, cancelling sessions due to lack of resources. This year, the second and third sessions of the Committee were not yet confirmed. Weakening of the Committee would not only weaken international human rights oversight but also send a troubling signal about the collective will to combat racial discrimination globally.
In addition, the Committee was increasingly impacted by a drop in timely reporting by States parties - a trend that undermined its ability to plan and hold dialogue sessions, notably for the years 2026 and 2027. But despite these challenges, the Committee remained steadfast. On average, it reviewed 18 State party reports per year, consistently worked to refine its methods of work, and continued to engage in meaningful, forward-looking initiatives in line with its mandate.
This year marked the sixtieth anniversary of the Convention, which was adopted on 21 December 1965. To mark this auspicious occasion, the Committee and its Secretariat were working in collaboration with partners on a year-long campaign throughout 2025. The campaign highlighted the foundational importance of the Convention for the fight against racial discrimination, and focused attention on its continued relevance today. It would stimulate discussions on effective practices to address structural and emerging challenges in preventing and combatting racial discrimination and aimed to renew the commitment for the effective implementation of the Convention.
The Committee encouraged all States parties to the Convention to contribute to the anniversary by taking concrete action to implement the Convention, including jointly with other States and stakeholders, at the local, national, regional or international levels. The Committee would hold a high-level commemorative event, tentatively scheduled to take place on 4 December 2025. The active support of States parties and all stakeholders in the organization of this event was crucial for its success.
The Committee had adopted general recommendation 37 in 2024 on equality and freedom from racial discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to health. This general recommendation clarified the obligations undertaken under the Convention regarding the right to health and provided guidance on measures to address concerns in line with the Convention.
Currently, the Committee was working with the Committee on Migrant Workers on a joint general recommendation on xenophobia; regional consultations were held last year to inform the drafting. It was also elaborating a general recommendation on reparations, which would provide guidance on the scope and content of the right to reparations under international human rights law, particularly concerning the harms of the forced capture of Africans, the transatlantic transport of those captives, their enslavement as chattel, and the massive and continuing harms suffered by their descendants.
The Committee called on States parties to provide advice on how to address the unprecedented crisis affecting the treaty body system.
RÉGINE ESSENEME, Committee Vice-Chair, said the Convention was adopted by the General Assembly in 1965 and entered into force in 1969. It covered all areas of human rights and fundamental freedoms and had been ratified by 182 countries. These States parties had committed to engaging in the Committee’s periodic review process, under which each State party was obliged to submit an initial report after one year of ratification and subsequent periodic reports every two years. For several years however, States parties had submitted fewer reports to the Committee, often choosing to combine reports over longer periods.
Most States had submitted to the Committee’s simplified reporting procedure, but given its resource limitations, the Committee prioritised States with reports overdue by more than 10 years for this procedure. Currently, 78 States parties had significant delays in the submission of reports. The Committee sought States’ views on this issue and on methods of fostering collaboration with States parties to ensure that they honoured their commitments under the Convention.
Discussion with States Parties
In the ensuing discussion, representatives of States parties said, among other things, that the Convention, the first fundamental human rights treaty, was an essential tool for combatting racial discrimination. Speakers expressed commitment to fulfilling their obligations under the Convention and eliminating racial discrimination, xenophobia and social exclusion, and to cooperating with the Committee. They thanked the Committee for its work in eliminating racial discrimination. Cooperating with the Committee gave States the ability to ensure the highest possible implementation of the Convention.
Many speakers said they would join in the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Convention, which offered an opportunity for renewing commitments under the Convention and addressing modern challenges related to racial discrimination, including hate speech, discrimination and xenophobic practices. They expressed concern about the United Nations’ liquidity crisis, which impacted the Committee’s work.
Speakers presented measures to prevent racial discrimination and promote racial equality; recognise the status and promote the rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their participation in policy development; and participate in the Committee’s reporting procedure and follow-up on the recommendations of the Committee.
Some speakers proposed that the Committee held hybrid meetings with States when necessary to promote the participation of civil servants with specific knowledge and civil society in States with limited resources. One speaker called for the hybrid meeting tools used by the United Nations to guarantee the equal participation of all States. Some speakers called on the Committee to strengthen its cooperation with regional mechanisms and other international bodies, including the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect.
One speaker said that individual communications needed to be handled effectively. How did the Committee monitor the implementation of its decision on individual communications?
Some speakers noted that the Committee had decided to extend the simplified reporting procedure to all States parties, but at the same time requested many States to continue using the regular reporting procedure as their reports were not overdue by 10 years. Why had the Committee decided to do this? The simplified reporting procedure would ease States’ reporting burden. Without this procedure, future report submissions could be delayed, they said. Other speakers, however, said that there were disadvantages to the simplified procedure, expressing support for the regular reporting procedure. One speaker said that efforts to simplify reporting procedures needed to be balanced with efforts to establish a predictable reporting calendar.
One speaker expressed concern regarding unilateral coercive measures and human rights violations against migrants, including their illegal deportation to other States. Another speaker raised the issue of trans-Atlantic slavery, expressing support for a new United Nations instrument on the rights of people of African descent.
Statements and Responses by Committee Experts
MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Chair, thanked States for the proposals they had put forward. He said that the Committee offered the possibility of hybrid dialogues, which were not currently shortened compared to regular dialogues. The Committee regretted that it did not have the possibility to hold hybrid meetings with other stakeholders.
The simplified reporting procedure was a crucial issue. There was a problem with this procedure in that it was not, in fact, simple from the perspective of the Committee and its secretariat. If the Committee had more capacity to prepare lists of issues prior to reporting, it would have done so.
The Chair encouraged States parties to engage in events to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the Convention, information on which was available online. He also called for further dialogue between the Committee and regional bodies.
NOUREDDIN AMIR, Committee Expert, said that Committee Experts were elected by States every two years on a rolling basis. They sought to achieve States’ aspirations to better fulfil their human rights obligations. The Committee was committed to combatting racism and injustice, which was everywhere. It needed to promote discussions between belligerents in the wars that were currently raging. Women and children were being killed in Palestine. States needed to take responsibility for these issues, stop criminals, and seek justice for those whose voices were not heard. The International Court of Justice needed to be able to condemn States that carried out forbidden acts against international law.
STAMATIA STAVRINAKI, Committee Expert, said that the Committee’s individual communications procedure had not yet reached its full potential, as around one-third of States parties to the Convention had not accepted the procedure. Last year, the Committee adopted decisions on 48 complaints and found violations in 27 of them. The Committee advocated for this procedure, which created an opportunity to remedy harms caused by racial discrimination and to prevent future violations. States parties could deploy junior professionals to support the Working Group on individual communications. The Committee invited States to accept the individual communications procedure, which would reenforce their efforts to combat racial discrimination effectively.
FAITH DIKELEDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert, said that the Committee had strengthened its relationship with regional human rights mechanisms, contacting relevant regional bodies regarding their assessment of follow-up efforts to the Committee’s concluding observations. The concluding observations contained recommendations for improving the implementation of the Convention, which were to be implemented within one year. States parties were required to submit follow-up reports on the implementation of these recommendations, but only one-third of States parties submitted reports, which often did not demonstrate sufficient implementation of the recommendations. The Committee called on all States to submit these reports.
VERENE ALBERTHA SHEPHERD, Committee Vice-Chair, expressed pleasure that several States parties from the Group of Latin America and the Caribbean region were attending the meeting. She was the only Expert on the Committee from this region. She called on these States to promote the appointment of more Experts from the region. It was regrettable that some countries had difficulty in using hybrid tools offered for participation in dialogue, and that some non-governmental organizations could not attend meetings with the Committee. The Committee would address these issues.
Ms. Shepherd said that a second International Decade for People of African Descent had been established by the General Assembly. She called on all States to participate in commemorations of the Decade. The Committee used an intersectional lens when addressing racial discrimination to address issues such as gender. In closing, she called on States to financially support the Committee to address its liquidity crisis.
GAY MCDOUGALL, Committee Vice-Chair, said that the Committee had issued general recommendation 25 on gender, in which it committed to taking an intersectional approach to gender. The Committee was also committed to assessing the relationship between racial discrimination and economic marginalisation. It was assessing opportunities for decent work for ethnic minorities, as well as access to education and other social services.
The Committee was concerned by its shrinking resources and capacity to do its work. It was in the worst situation of any treaty body in terms of resources. Although it had one of the most ratified treaties, the Committee received among the lowest number of reports. Why was this?
RÉGINE ESSENEME, Committee Vice-Chair, said the legal basis for the presentation of reports was article nine, paragraph one of the Convention. The purpose of the simplified reporting procedure was to encourage States to submit reports. However, it had not led to an increase in the number of reports that the Committee received. The Committee was affected by a lack of human and financial resources. The simplified reporting procedure was not simple for the Committee; it was thus the exception and not the rule. States needed to respect their reporting obligations under the Convention.
CHINSUNG CHUNG, Committee Expert, said the Committee and all nine treaty bodies had inter-State communications procedures. The Committee had received and considered three inter-State communications, and amicable solutions to two of these complaints had been found. A third communication had been received from the State of Palestine against Israel in 2018. The Committee had issued six recommendations in relation to this communication. What steps could the Committee take to ensure that its recommendations would be implemented? Ms. Chung encouraged States to cooperate with the inter-State communications procedure.
IBRAHIMA GUISSE, Committee Expert, said that the Committee had set up an early warning mechanism to prevent existing issues from becoming conflicts. The mechanism could intervene if there was a lack of legislation or mechanisms to prevent racial discrimination, or to react to discriminatory statements or actions. The Committee had recently adopted decisions under this procedure related to Sudan and the State of Palestine, which had been cited by the International Court of Justice. Most conflicts in the world stemmed from racial or religious issues. The Committee could be a major force to prevent such crises, but it needed the support of States in this regard.
BAKARI SIDIKI DIABY, Committee Expert, commended the efforts of States parties to engage in dialogue with the Committee. Some States had not come before the Committee for more than 20 years. The simplified procedure was set up to assist such States. The Committee also had the power to examine States parties in the absence of a report if necessary and it had done so in the past. It called on all States to help victims protected by the Convention and to engage in dialogue with the Committee. States also needed to cooperate with civil society in preparation for dialogues. Some members of civil society who had cooperated with the Committee had been subjected to reprisals; the United Nations had no tolerance for this.
PELA BOKER-WILSON, Committee Expert, said that reviews of some States parties showed a lack of collection of disaggregated data that allowed for a comparison of population groups. This entailed moving away from traditional data collection practices. States parties were encouraged to collect data on sex, age, ethnicity, migration status, disability, religion and other distinctions.
GÜN KUT, Committee Expert, thanked representatives of States parties for engaging with the Committee and expressing support for the Committee’s work. The Committee was sensitive to States’ questions, demands and criticisms. The success of the Committee depended on States parties’ will and contributions. The Committee needed regularity in the submission of reports and sufficient follow-up to the Committee’s recommendations, including through follow-up and periodic reports. The Committee sought to improve its work, but this depended on securing sufficient meeting time and support for the Committee’s secretariat. States needed to commit to sending reports on time and supporting the financial situation of treaty bodies.
MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert, called on States to support the functioning of the Committee.
YEUNG KAM JOHN YEUNG SIK YUEN, Committee Expert, said many States parties had not taken steps to criminalise hate speech. Was this done deliberately to protect politicians? When the Committee issued a decision on an individual communication, it left it to States parties involved to implement it. The Committee took up implementation of these decisions in dialogues with States parties.
Closing Remarks
MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Chair, thanked States parties for attending the meeting. The Committee would do its best to address the issues raised in the dialogue. It would work efficiently with States and ensure that it did not disappoint victims of racial discrimination. The Chair called on States to encourage the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Convention across the world. The Committee looked forward to further engagement with States in future.
___________
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.
CERD25.003E