COMMITTEE CONTINUES DISCUSSION ON EARLY WARNING AND EMERGENCY ACTION PROCEDURES
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today continued its discussion on its early warning and emergency action procedure. It also considered follow-up to individual communications, the situation in the non-self-governing territories and follow-up to the Durban Programme of Action.
On the early warning and emergency action procedure, Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill, Chairperson of the Working Group on the early warning and emergency action procedure, continued her presentation started yesterday, looking at complaints relating to Suriname, Nicaragua, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Peru, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Following discussions among Experts, the Committee adopted the following decisions. On Suriname, where the lands and resources of indigenous and tribal peoples were allegedly being illegally exploited, it was decided to send letters to the State party and to the High Commissioner for Human Rights. On Nicaragua, in a case involving the land rights of the indigenous Awas Tingni, it was decided to send a letter requesting the State party to include information on the situation in its periodic report due in September 2006. On the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, and charges of discrimination against the Hmung people, it was decided that, as the case was already being considered under the follow-up procedure, no specific action would be taken under the urgent action procedure.
In Peru, on a complaint by indigenous Andean communities that their rights to surface and groundwater had been infringed, the Committee decided to send a letter to the Government and to decide on the basis of the response whether to take action under the urgent action procedure. Concerning complaints regarding land rights from indigenous groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it was decided to move the date for consideration of that country’s report forward to March 2007, and to send a letter to the Government requesting further information to be considered in conjunction with its report.
On follow-up to individual communications, Committee Expert Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, presenting a draft report on the status of individual communications, reported that the Committee had adopted final opinions on the merits with respect to 22 complaints, finding violations of the Convention in nine and, in complaints where the Committee had found no violations, providing suggestions or recommendations.
The Committee then adopted the report on follow-up to individual communications, for inclusion in its annual report to the General Assembly.
Introducing the situation in the non-self-governing territories, addressed under Article 15 of the Convention, Committee Expert Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai noted that there was no evidence in the reports submitted by the Special Committee on the Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples of cases of racial discrimination, although there was ample evidence of the ethnic diversity of those territories.
Following Mr. Pillai’s recommendations, the Committee undertook to encourage States parties that administered these territories to take measures to enhance awareness of Article 15 in those territories and would request them to include information related to Article 15 in their periodic reports.
On follow-up to the Durban Programme of Action, Ms. January-Bardill said that one of the focuses at the recent meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Durban had been on how the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination could be strengthened to fill procedural gaps that had been identified, including a general perception that Committee recommendations were non-binding and were therefore unevenly implemented; inadequate reporting on multiple and aggravated forms of racial discrimination, including genocide, defamation of religious symbols and hate speech; and the need for greater clarity with regard to Article 5 rights, in particular, a definition of cultural rights.
When the Committee next reconvenes in public at 3 p.m. on Friday, 18 August, it is scheduled to issue its conclusions and recommendations on the reports which it has considered during the session and adopt its annual report before closing its sixty-ninth session.
Presentation on Early Warning and Emergency Action Procedure
PATRICIA NOZIPHO JANUARY-BARDILL, Chairperson of the Working Group on the Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedure, continued her report on the actions of the Working Group. On Suriname, where it was alleged that the lands and resources of indigenous and tribal peoples were being illegally exploited, a letter had been drafted, referring to the Committee’s General Recommendation 23 on indigenous peoples, and requesting Suriname to address the subject of the complaint in its next periodic report due in April 2007. The Working Group also suggested that a letter about the case be sent to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The Committee adopted the suggestion to send the two letters.
Regarding Nicaragua, the indigenous community of Awas Tingni claimed to be suffering as a result of the non-enforcement of the August 2001 judgement by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, finding that Nicaragua had violated the community’s rights when it granted a logging concession in Awas Tingni territory without its consent. Ms. January-Bardill recalled that the Committee had already decided to consider Nicaragua in its review procedure and had requested it to submit a periodic report by 30 September 2006. The Chairperson could write to the State party, submitting the non-governmental organization report on the situation and requesting them to include a response to it in the September report.
The Committee decided to send a letter to the State party, as suggested.
Regarding the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Ms. January-Bardill said there was a complaint regarding the Hmung community pending. In August 2003 the Committee adopted a decision on the situation under its early warning and urgent action procedure. In 2005, the Committee requested the State party to provide information within a year on follow-up. The response received was that there was no conflict between the Lao and the Hmung communities.
Experts also recalled that a decision had been taken on the situation under the follow-up procedure. It was widely agreed that actions under both the follow-up and the early warning and urgent actions procedures should not be carried out at the same time.
It was decided that the case would be considered under the follow-up procedure, and that the Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedure Working Group should work with the Working Group on Follow-up Procedure to that end.
In Peru, Ms. January-Bardill said a complaint brought by the indigenous Andean communities of Tacna alleged that they were suffering from poverty and hunger owing to the State party’s refusal to protect their groundwater. The Working Group had discussed the situation with the Permanent Representative of Peru in Geneva yesterday. The Ambassador had explained that the project for both providing water to cities and indigenous peoples had begun 30 years ago. It had been started without an appropriate environmental impact assessment, with unfortunate consequences. A recent assessment undertaken by the local government had concluded that financial and other compensation was due to the indigenous community. He also clarified that the land in question was not actually the property of the indigenous communities.
It was noted by Experts that the Human Rights Committee was also seized of the same case, under its individual communication procedure. An Expert did not feel the present case was one that should be considered under the early warning and urgent action procedure – the situation did not justify it. Another Expert felt that land issues were always potentially inflammatory.
It was decided to send a letter to the Government of Peru requesting further information; then, on the basis of the response, the Committee would make a decision as to whether to use the urgent action procedure to address the matter.
Concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ms. January-Bardill said seven submitting organizations had expressed concern about the situation of indigenous peoples there, owing to the granting of logging rights and the establishment of national parks without their consultation, as well as general non-recognition of their rights to own, control and use their lands and territories and resources, or any legal guarantees in that regard.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo had last reported to the Committee in 1996, when the Committee had expressed its grave reservations about the situation of the Batwa/Pygmies. As the Democratic Republic of the Congo had now submitted its report, Ms. January-Bardill suggested that the situation could be addressed by, first, bringing forward the date for the report’s consideration to March 2007, and then sending a letter to the State party requesting that it provide information on the question to be addressed in conjunction with consideration of the report .
The Committee decided to move the date for consideration of the report of the Democratic Republic of the Congo forward to March 2007, and to send a letter to the Government requesting information on the present matter to be considered in conjunction with the Committee’s consideration of its report.
In conclusion, Ms. January-Bardill reminded the Committee that on the case of the Western Shoshone, the United States had been requested to respond by the end of July and had not done so. Regarding the situation of the Gypsies in the United Kingdom, information had been received from the United Kingdom, but the Committee had not yet had time to consider it during the present session.
Follow-Up on Individual Communications
LINOS-ALEXANDRE SICILIANOS, Special Rapporteur for Follow-up to Opinions on Individual Communications, recalled that last year the Committee had decided to establish a procedure to follow-up its opinions on individual communications. Before members was a draft report on the status of individual communications that had been drawn up for inclusion in the annual report. The draft report contained an annex reflecting all the cases in which the Committee found violations of the Conventions or provided suggestions or recommendations in cases of no violation, as well as all information received from either the petitioner or the State party up to 16 August 2006.
In the main body of the report was a more condensed table showing a complete picture of follow-up replies from States parties received up to 16 August 2006, which showed the status of cases where the Committee had found violations of the Convention or had provided suggestions or recommendations in cases of no violation. As of 16 August, the Committee had adopted final opinions on the merits with respect to 22 complaints and found violations of the Convention in 9 of them. In other complaints the Committee had found no violation of the Convention but had provided suggestions or recommendations.
The report on follow-up to individual communications was adopted for inclusion in the Committee’s annual report.
Situation in the Non-Self-Governing Territories (Article 15)
RAGHAVAN VASUDEVAN PILLAI, Committee Expert, introducing the situation in non-self-governing territories, said that the Committee had decided in 2005 to follow-up on the situation from 1991 onwards on the situation relating to the work of Article 15 of the Convention. With the independence of Timor-Leste, only 16 reports were considered. One of those related to a United Nations-administered area and others to non-self-governing territories governed by the United Kingdom, the United States, France and New Zealand.
Mr. Pillai observed that the territories involved were often larger in terms of geographical area and population than those of some States. The populations of the territories also tended to be extremely mixed. The territories concerned were American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar, Guam, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos Islands, the United States Virgin Islands and Western Sahara.
Mr. Pillai noted that there was no evidence in the reports submitted by the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of cases of racial discrimination, although they provided ample evidence of the ethnic diversity of those territories. There was a certain lack of awareness, however, about the provisions of the Convention. He suggested that State parties administering the territories take measures to enhance the level of awareness of the provisions of Article 15 of the Convention. He also recommended that in future State parties include information relevant to Article 15 in their reports.
The Committee adopted the recommendation to encourage State parties that administered territories to take measures to enhance awareness of Article 15 in those territories and would request them to include information related to Article 15 in their periodic reports.
Follow-up on the Durban Programme of Action
PATRICIA NOZIPHO JANUARY-BARDILL, Committee Expert, presented highlights of the discussion in the fourth session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, held in January 2006, which had looked at racism and the Internet, complementary international standards, and racism and globalization. One of the main focuses of the discussion on complementary standards had been how the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination could be strengthened to fill procedural gaps that had been identified.
Ms. January-Bardill said it had been noted that multiple and aggravated forms of racial discrimination – including genocide, defamation of religious symbols, and hate speech – were elements that were not adequately reported in State party reports. Most State parties had felt that procedural gaps required the adoption of complementary standards, and some felt that could be done through regional commitments, such as European Union instruments. Also, because the Committee’s recommendations were seen as non-binding, it had been observed that that had allowed for uneven implementation. A desire for greater clarity was also expressed with regard to Article 5 rights, in particular with regard to a definition of cultural rights.
RAGHAVAN VASUDEVAN PILLAI, Committee Expert, who had also attended the meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group, said that a need had also been expressed for the Committee to undertake country visits, and for it to establish a uniform and strengthened monitoring procedure for follow-up on its recommendations to States parties.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CRD06030E