COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the initial to sixth periodic reports of Bosnia and Herzegovina on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Slobodan Nagradic, Assistant Minister for Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, presented the report, saying that significant results had been achieved that would have an important impact on the promotion and protection of human rights and the reduction of discrimination in daily life in Bosnia and Herzegovina, specifically, in the areas of legislative affairs, awareness raising and tolerance, strengthening of institutional capacities for human rights protection, strengthening of the non-governmental organizations sector with regard to the protection of vulnerable populations and those subject to discrimination, legal reform, education, social and health care, media, property and the labour sphere.

The major problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina was not racial discrimination in its narrow reading, but discrimination that was rooted in ethnic and national diversity among the communities living in the country, Mr. Nagradic said. For example, while the Roma from time to time suffered from individual acts of discrimination, there were other types of discrimination between other groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina that were harder to speak about. There had been and still existed such cases in the country, but it was much less than previously and less than it might appear to those outside the country.

In preliminary remarks, Ralph Boyd, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for Bosnia and Herzegovina, said that he was greatly impressed with the response of the delegation to the important issues raised concerning discriminatory provisions in the State party's Constitution, with regard to the situation of the Roma, the largest and most vulnerable minority community, and with regard to addressing the difficulty of providing an integrated, inclusive and multicultural education for all of its citizens. Much information that had not been included in the report had been provided by the delegation in its responses to questions, and concrete examples of the current situation in the country had clarified the situation. He was pleased to note that the State party held the maintenance of peace as a primary value. The institutional framework that was the legacy of that peace process, however, had to be addressed and reformed if Bosnia and Herzegovina were to be a true democracy. The country appeared to be on the right road, now all that remained was for it to implement its good intentions.

During the discussion, which was held over three meetings, other Committee Experts also raised questions about, among others, education; the use of the term "others" in the Constitution to identify those who did not belong to one of the three constituent groups; employment opportunities for returnees; the lack of funding for the advisory board on Roma people; the forcible ejection of Roma; the education of Roma children; a lack of multicultural education and the mechanisms for multicultural exchange; minority women's rights; the electoral process in relation to minority groups; and cases involving freedom of the press.

The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the initial to sixth periodic reports of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CERD/C/464/Add.1), which were presented in one document, at the end of its session, which concludes on 10 March.

The Committee was also briefed by its members Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill and Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai who attended the fourth meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Follow-up to Durban, which was held last week.

It also exchanged views with José Dougan-Beaca, the Head of the Anti-Discrimination Unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 24 February, it will study individual communications in private, and then move to a public meeting.

Report of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Racial discrimination as well as other forms of discrimination are directly prohibited by the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and are also defined in different sections of Bosnia and Herzegovina's criminal code. The initial through sixth period reports of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CERD/C/464/Add.1), submitted in a single document, note that the country is going through a period of economic and legal transition. The structure of the State is a decentralized and complex one, consisting of two distinct entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with 10 cantons and the smaller territory called Brcko District, and the Republika Srpska. According to the 1991 census, of 4,377,033 inhabitants, 43.4 per cent are Bosniak, 31.2 per cent Serb and 17.3 per cent are Croats.

The country still suffers from the consequences of the war of 1992 to 1995, which led to a breakdown of its legislative, legal and administrative system. Nevertheless there have been significant improvements, notably in the area of the return of displaced persons and refugees, with 1,002,668 returnees, both refugees and internally displaced persons, during 1995 to 2004. Wider religious freedom of expression is guaranteed by a new administrative mechanism. Minorities are encouraged to participate in public life and they are guaranteed the right to vote and to be elected as representatives of the national minority as long as the members of the minority population for that electoral unit make up 3 per cent of the population. The right of minorities to their education in their mother tongue is also being facilitated and their right to cultural expression is protected.

The socio-economic situation in the country remains unsatisfactory, and that has a direct effect on disadvantaged minorities such as the Roma, who are the largest minority group. There is a high rate of illiteracy among the Roma and a low school enrolment, owing both to socio-economic factors and to attitudes of Roma parents towards schooling. The report acknowledges that the situation of the Roma is extremely difficult in the country, that they are subject to discrimination, and that they rarely enjoy any fundamental social or economic rights. Efforts to better the situation of the Roma are being undertaken in the context of the Law on the Protection of the Rights of National Minorities and through the work of the Roma Council with the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Presentation of Report

SLOBODAN NAGRADIC, Assistant Minister for Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, said there had regrettably been a delay in the submission of the report. Although it had only been submitted nine months ago to the Committee, most of the report had been completed in 2004. Much of the information in the report was now obsolete and would lead someone who was reading it to reach false conclusions about the current situation in the country with regard to the implementation of the Convention. Conditions in the country had since changed, not just regarding to methodology for approaching human rights, but also in the climate for addressing those topics. He hoped that, through the provision of additional information provided by the delegation on the subject with regard to human rights and the implementation of the Convention in the country that a better picture of the actual situation would emerge.

Mr. Nagradic said that in the reporting period, significant results had been achieved that would have an important impact on the promotion and protection of human rights and the reduction of discrimination in daily life in Bosnia and Herzegovina, specifically, in the areas of legislative affairs, awareness raising and tolerance, strengthening of institutional capacities for human rights protection, strengthening of the non-governmental organizations sector with regard to the protection of vulnerable populations and those subject to discrimination, legal reform, education, social and health care, media, property and the labour sphere. Great strides had been made in raising the level of social awareness on human rights issues and the need to fight all forms of discrimination, as well as the State's recognition of the need to formulate programmes and legislation to address the issue of discrimination. Also, the non-governmental organization sector was radically strengthened in 2001 with the creation of numerous human rights organizations to assist Bosnia and Herzegovina in this area.

The major problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina was not racial discrimination in its narrow reading, but discrimination that was rooted in ethnic and national diversity among the communities living in the country, Mr. Nagradic said. For example, while the Roma from time to time suffered from individual acts of discrimination, there were other types of discrimination between other groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina that were harder to speak about. There had been and still existed such cases in the country, but it was much less than previously and less than it might appear to those outside the country. In that regard, it was necessary to look beyond the surface and see the historical trends that lay beneath. The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina had left many unresolved questions in the country, not just among the populace, but among the country's leaders as well. These were complicated issues and to resolve them they could not always proceed along paths that might be wished or at the pace that would be desired. Nevertheless the process was ongoing and progress was being made. All the possibilities had not been exhausted. Human rights education, to raise awareness on old and new forms of discrimination, was an area where such issues could be concretely addressed. The country had to make improvements where it could, for example, to mobilize interest in the care and protection of the rights of the disabled, in particular children with disabilities, to assist civil victims of the war, to provide better protections for pensioners, and to facilitate better access to information by members of religious minorities. Bosnia and Herzegovina was working on all those issues within its modest resources.

Along with the report and the statements to be made before the Committee, as well as information from other sources, Mr. Nagradic said that he hoped a decent picture could be formed of the current situation in the country with regard to the implementation of the Convention there.

Another member of the delegation, continuing with the presentation of the country report, said that precedence was given to international treaties and conventions over domestic law in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The make up of the country was complex and the need for tolerance was implied. Data collection had been impeded by the lack of a single, unified database, along with the fact that the most recent census figures for the country dated back to 1991, whereas the population had shifted enormously since then in terms of ethnic make up and other factors. Important assistance was provided by the Ombudsman's office in providing data, as well as by gender centres in the country. Another problem encountered in drafting the report had been a lack of resources. Some non-governmental organizations had not participated in the drafting the report, which also would have helped. A large focus of the report concerned the problems faced by the Roma community in Bosnia and Herzegovina and programmes and activities to address the situation of that minority.

Oral Questions Raised by the Committee’s Rapporteur and Experts

RALPH BOYD, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for Bosnia and Herzegovina, said that a decade had passed since the war and he felt that it was indeed a good time to take stock of the situation in the country. While he knew that the report had complained of a lack of resources and limited documentary resources, the Rapporteur still wished for greater details on activities carried out to prevent discrimination in the legal sphere. The Constitutional provision that guaranteed the rights embodied in the Convention was noteworthy, but the report contained no mention of how this was carried out in practice. Also, while it was stated in the report that the Convention was directly applicable as law and indeed superseded national law, there were no examples or discussion of how the Convention was given full force in the national courts.

The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina guaranteed an exhaustive list of basic human rights, Mr. Boyd noted, but that list was not co-extensive with those guaranteed under Article 5 of the Convention, particularly in the area of employment and housing. Also, it was unclear exactly what the report meant in stating that the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina incorporated all the international treaties and conventions to which it was a party and that those instruments superseded domestic law. Did that mean that the actual text of those conventions were incorporated by specific reference or that the general concepts enunciated therein were part of State law? The report failed to mention the scope and range of remedies that could be applied for successful prosecutions of racially or ethnically motivated crimes or how many such cases had been prosecuted. Was there a civil analogue to the criminal offence of discrimination and, if so, what were the remedies and what body had jurisdiction to hear such cases?

While he understood that Bosnia and Herzegovina's Constitution was a legacy of the peace process and that the Dayton Accords had dictated its structure, Mr. Boyd said it was nevertheless worrisome that the Constitution still appeared to tie access to participation in the political system to a person's national ethnicity, and that it was open to challenge as a discriminatory instrument which was in violation of the Convention. It was a difficult question, he realized, given the country's history, but one consequence of the current Constitution was that, as he read the report, members of national minority groups appeared to be shut out from the process of electing members to the dominant constituency, as were members of the majority group living in other territories. Also, only members of the three major constituent groups could be elected to office in the tripartite presidency. The same applied to the election processes for membership in the country's parliament. National minorities were either essentially or wholly excluded from these processes and thus were effectively disenfranchised. While the Constitution had served a historical purpose, significant Constitutional reform appeared to be necessary to bring Bosnia and Herzegovina in line with the Convention. The price to pay did not seem to be too high. It was a mistake to encourage and promote ethnic differences at the expense of respect for democracy.

The foregoing observations had direct application to the situation of the Roma, the existence of mono-ethnic neighbourhoods, the current situation where separate schools had to be created with separate curricula, and the lack of commensurate educational opportunities for non-constituent minorities, Mr. Boyd noted.

The report stated that there was a new law on the protection of national minorities, but did not say what resources had been allocated by the State to implement it. The scope of the State Human Rights Ombudsman's mandate, mentioned in the report, was also unclear, Mr. Boyd said. Could the Ombudsman only address acts by institutional actors, or could he also address complaints by private citizens? On the question of returnees, what was being done to protect them when they returned to their formerly armed communities?

Committee experts also raised questions about education; the use of the term "others" in the Constitution to identify those who did not belong to one of the three constituent groups; employment opportunities for returnees; the lack of funding for the advisory board on Roma people; the forcible ejection of Roma; the education of Roma children; a lack of multicultural education and the mechanisms for multicultural exchange; minority women's rights; the electoral process in relation to minority groups; and cases involving freedom of the press. Regarding mention in the report of the extradition of naturalized persons convicted of terrorist acts, one Expert wondered how that could be possible, given that naturalized persons were citizens and presumably could not be extradited. Several Experts were disturbed or puzzled by the statement in the report, in paragraph 112, that Islam played a role in destroying Roma culture among the Roma in the country and requested clarification.

One Expert echoed what the Rapporteur had said about the discriminatory nature of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which he felt enshrined discrimination on an ethnic basis by empowering only the three main constituent groups. Indeed, the very principle of non-discrimination did not appear to be basic to the laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Regarding hate speech, it was asked whether there was a law in Bosnia and Herzegovina that prohibited such acts by individuals, rather than by institutions or associations.

Response by Delegation to Oral Questions

SLOBODAN NAGRADIC, Assistant Minister in the Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, responding to questions posed by the Country Rapporteur, said that he was grateful for the comments made by the Experts, and the helpful direction they provided for a way forward for his country in the future. He had been glad to note yesterday that Mr. Boyd agreed that Bosnia and Herzegovina was a complex State, sui generis. Bosnia and Herzegovina consisted of two political and administrative entities, which were established by the Dayton Constitution. Since 1996, however, there had been a movement towards a greater grant of authority to the National Government and several spheres were now solely controlled by the National Government, for example, in the area of security and defence. An agreement was also reached to enlarge the authority of the National Government over areas such as agriculture, environment, science and technology.

Admittedly, there remained discriminatory areas of the Constitution, for example the Constitutional provision that members of the Presidency could only be from the Serb, Bosniak and Croat constituencies. The same was true for the Constitutional provisions regarding election of parliamentary representatives. It was true that currently Serb delegates could only be elected from the Republika Srpska, and Bosniak and Croat delegates only from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina or a territory in which their group represented a majority. Both of those problems had been recognized, Mr. Nagradic said, and most of the relevant political actors in Bosnia and Herzegovina had agreed to change them. The latest agreement on the subject had been reached just last Sunday, when it was agreed to eliminate ethnic epithets before candidates' names, paving the way for the presidency to include citizens who were not members of one of three constituent peoples. It remained for that agreement to be concretized by Constitutional amendment and to have the election law accordingly amended. Another agreement concerned the ability of a constituent person to be elected from a territory where his group did not make up the majority. It was hoped that all of the amendments could be completed by 1 October, when new elections were scheduled. All these major changes, fruit of difficult political compromise, had to be completed by 1 April, as no changes affecting election law could be made within the 6 months leading up to the election under the Constitution.

Mr. Nagradic said it should be reiterated that the provisions set up by the Dayton Peace Accords still carried historical weight, because it was only through those agreements that peace had been achieved. No reform of those agreements could be contemplated without a real consensus among all in Bosnia and Herzegovina, both those in the political and social spheres. For the citizens of the country, peace was the supreme value and the State would do nothing that would jeopardize that peace. He hoped that by the same time next year he would be able to report to the Committee on important amendments to the Constitution that would allow it to take account of minorities, as well as the three constituent groups.

In addition, several reforms through Constitutional amendments at the entity level had already been undertaken, which provided for the equal status of all of the three constituent groups in each of the entities. After the adoption of those amendments, for example, it was now possible for a Croat to become the President of the Supreme Court in the Republika Srpska, and the current chief prosecutor there was a Bosniak. The number of Serbs in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the numbers of Croats and Bosniaks in the Republika Srbska in administrative areas and in the police had also increased.

Another member of the delegation, taking up the response to questions posed by Experts, said that she agreed with the country Rapporteur that it was unique that the Constitution acknowledged the primacy of international human rights instruments over the national law. Their actual status was as constitutional provisions, and thus they acted as standards against which the enactment of legislation had to be judged. Five or six cases that had been tried in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for example, had relied on the provisions of International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

With regard to what was the recourse for citizens with discrimination claims, they could file complaints with a competent body, or with a constitutional court at the entity level, which were empowered to stop discriminatory acts and to award damages. The case of victims of war was a more complex one, given that they could only seek redress for non-material harm under current law, but reform of that law was under consideration. The greatest problem, in that regard, was the lack of resources of the State, which simply did not have the means to adequately compensate its citizens for harms incurred.

Courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the police, in particular in cases of discrimination involving returnees, had made great progress. There had been many cases of impeding return, almost 2,000 cases in 2004, but only 200 in 2005. The number of such cases had steadily declined. The delegation said this was owing to criminal charges that had been filed in such cases. In most of those cases court rulings had been handed down under article 145. Notably, a recent poll showed that the majority of the returnees of each of the three ethnic groups felt secure, and only a small minority experienced feelings of insecurity.

The delegation provided greater detail on instances of discrimination in the labour sphere and in cases of acts of desecration of religious sites that had been prosecuted and the sentences or outcomes of those cases. In addition to the cases that had been prosecuted, there were specific laws to address such crimes as desecration of the remains of deceased persons and of graves. The Inter-religious Council played a significant role in establishing a climate of tolerance and respect.

Regarding the competency of the Equal Rights Ombudsman, he was competent to hear complaints from any legal or natural persons and was empowered to make recommendations to the competent Government authorities. If the Ombudsman determined that there were grounds to undertake an investigation, the civil authorities were bound to comply with requests for information to undertake that investigation. Criminal and civil liabilities were provided for non-compliance with investigations undertaken by that office.

Although the education sphere had been greatly reformed, education was still controlled in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the entity level. At the national level the administration merely provided a coordinating function. Several legislative reforms had been undertaken in this sphere, and framework laws enacted, to increase access to education by all, to improve standards, to address the question of which language and alphabet were to be used in teaching, the rights of minorities in education, the integration of children returnees and teacher returnees, the abolition of two schools under one roof, and the question of children with disabilities. Draft guidelines on the education of Roma children, to effectively include them in the system, were also under consideration.

Addressing concerns expressed by Experts at the existence of mono-ethnic schools, the delegation said that that was not a great concern for the State. Mono-ethnic schools may have been a practice in the period right after the war, but it was no longer common and was the subject of a framework law. Of greater concern to the current administration was the phenomenon of "two schools under one roof ", which was much more common. In those schools there was ethnic segregation and, despite being under one roof, the schools even functioned as separate legal entities. There were 52 such schools in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina today. Efforts were under way to unify those schools. Unification meant a single principal, joint administration, a joint school board, a single teaching standard and curriculum, common extracurricular activities, hours and equipment. Three schools had already been unified, other schools were on the road to unification, while still others had not made any attempts to reform. The parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina had empowered a fact-finding commission that was currently preparing a report on the subject. It was not a problem that would be resolved quickly. It involved a clash of rights, that to equal treatment and that to education in one's mother tongue, and it also bore financial implications that could not be met at present.

The delegation said enormous change was necessary to implement a system in which all children, for example, would have to be taught both alphabets and all teachers would have to be able to respond to a student regardless of what language the student spoke in. On a positive note, the interactive core curricula currently in place included the teaching of tolerance, democracy and human rights.

On the question of minorities, the delegation said, there were 17 legally recognized minorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However the statistics from the most recent census in 1991 were sadly out of date. Currently, the largest de facto minority were the Roma, though that fact was not reflected in the census. In 1991 Montenegrins made up the largest minority, although that was a bit of a misnomer if one considered that the Montenegrins shared the same language and religion as the Serbs. Those who were called "others" in the National Constitution were those persons who neither fell into the group of the three constituent groups nor into the groups of legally recognized minorities, and the language was simply to ensure that the rights granted by the Constitution were extended to all.

There were an estimated 30,000 and 40,000 Roma in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the approximately 40 Roma non-governmental organizations believed that the actual Roma population was much greater. Most of the Roma in the Republika Srpska were Muslim, whereas those in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina were largely Orthodox. Those distinctions, however, had never been felt to have a great impact on the status or treatment of the Roma. Many Roma declined to identify themselves as such. The Roma were unquestionably the most disadvantaged, poorest, least employed, and most vulnerable minority group. The major reason for their lack of employment was that they generally had an insufficient level of education. Looking at education for the Roma, the lack of scholarization among the majority of Roma children, which was the root cause of later unemployment, was a situation that needed to be addressed. In that regard, perhaps one solution would be for the State to sanction the parents of Roma children who did not attend school, the delegation said. The lack of permanent residences for Roma, which was a part of their tradition, was another obstacle to school enrolment, as well the source of housing problems. Even during the Soviet period, most Roma lived in illegal dwellings without regular infrastructure including sewerage, running water, or heat.

Four years ago the Roma Council was established as the highest representative body, and it currently oversaw 40 non-governmental organizations. Council members were elected by the Roma Assembly without State interference. Action plans for the Roma in the area of housing, employment, education in Romani and raising social awareness against discrimination are planned, but resources for their implementation are lacking.

The new law on minorities, which was brought into line with the European Union laws, provided that all minorities had the right to be educated in their native language. There were a handful of schools that provided education in Romani, but there was a dearth of teachers with the requisite knowledge. The enforcement of the law was particularly difficult because there were so many minority groups, some with only a few hundred persons, and they all enjoyed the same right to be educated in their language. There were some training programmes for Roma in place, and funds had been earmarked for the education of 11 Roma journalists.

Roma women had been the specific focus of programmes to help them understand their rights and to protect them from practices like trafficking and sexual abuse; the programmes included economic empowerment schemes.

Regarding the regulation of hate speech, the delegation said the Communication Regulatory Agency was responsible for regulating telecommunications and electronic media in the territory. In 1998 to 2002 hate discourse was very present in the electronic media, but over the course of 2002 it disappeared. In 2004 it reappeared in two separate instances, one a case in which anti-Semitic remarks were made on a television programme, and a similar case in which anti-Muslim slurs were made. Very high fines were imposed on the entities responsible in both cases and since then there had been no further occurrences of hate speech. A clear distinction existed between public and private television and radio stations, the delegation said, with public media being subject to a much heavier standard in this area, as well as bearing a positive responsibility to promote tolerance and harmony among the various ethnic groups. On public stations, for example, significant time was set aside to address customs, traditions and values of the various communities in the State.

Concerning education and protection against hate speech, school textbooks and other materials had been vetted for any objectionable terms that might be offensive. Curricula were also scrutinized with the same objective in mind - to promote tolerance and mutual understanding, in areas such as geography and history, for example.

Preliminary Remarks

RALPH BOYD, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for Bosnia and Herzegovina, in preliminary remarks, said that there was a great deal to commend in the responses of the delegation and in the good-will that its members had displayed to address the Committee's concerns. It was indeed a very positive development to see that primacy was given in the Constitution and State law of Bosnia and Herzegovina to international instruments, such as the Convention. In its response, the delegation had allayed the concerns which he had expressed earlier regarding the actual implementation of that provision, citing concrete examples of how those instruments were actually being used in case law today. Another area that was to be commended was the evidence of ongoing efforts and the intent to amend the areas of the Constitution that had been identified as discriminatory. He understood and empathized with the head of delegation's statement regarding the need for the primacy of peace in any consideration of amendments to the Constitution, and the need to broker a compromise that was acceptable to all in Bosnia and Herzegovina before any such amendment could be contemplated. Nevertheless, he felt that he had to reiterate that, though he could now see that the will and the understanding was there, the task of implementation remained. All of those identified as "other" in the Constitution needed to have equal access to rights and to the political process in order to ensure a truly democratic State.

Mr. Boyd said that he was greatly impressed with the response of the delegation to the important issues raised concerning discriminatory provisions in the State party's Constitution, with regard to the situation of the Roma, the largest and most vulnerable minority community, and with regard to addressing the difficulty of providing an integrated, inclusive and multicultural education for all of its citizens. Much information that had not been included in the report had been provided by the delegation in its responses to questions, and concrete examples of the current situation in the country had clarified the situation.

The delegation's analysis of the situation in the schools had been particularly enlightening and he was pleased to note that the existence of mono-ethnic schools was against the grain of public policy and that integration, and greater inclusiveness, in the educational sphere was the primary objective, Mr. Boyd said. A regularized curriculum that elevated and included multicultural elements, promoting not just tolerance but also an active teaching of shared values, was important. As a matter of urgency, the State had to find a way to engage and retain more of its minority children in education. The current state of scholarization for those groups constituted a national emergency in his view, the Rapporteur said.

The Rapporteur hoped that the reform of the Ombudsman's office, as planned, would have the intended result of guaranteeing a more effective response to those whose rights had been infringed.

In conclusion, Mr. Boyd said the frankness and critical approach of the delegation to the problems faced by Bosnia and Herzegovina was to be greatly admired and showed the spirit to bring about real change in areas of concern to the Committee. The State party appeared to be on the right path to address the Committee's concerns. Now all that remained was for them to take up the difficult task of carrying them out.

Briefing on Meeting of Intergovernmental Working Group on Follow-up to Durban

The Committee also heard a briefing from its Experts Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill and Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai who attended the fourth meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Follow-up to Durban, which was held last week. They reported that issues regarding the implementation and effectiveness of substantive and procedural provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination were considered at the meeting. In conjunction with the fourth meeting, a five-day high-level seminar was organized in January 2006 on the topics of racism and the Internet and on the drafting of complementary standards for the Convention. Among the topics discussed at the fourth meeting were affirmative action, the issue of how to balance freedom of expression with the requirements of article 4 of the Convention, specifically with regard to cyber crime and racist expressions via the Internet; the burden of proof that was placed on the victims of discrimination; the fact that a large number of States parties to the Convention had not subscribed to article 14, which allowed individuals to address their complaints directly to the Committee; and issues regarding reporting such as timely submission of reports, arrears in reporting, the quality of reports, and follow-up.

The Committee Experts said the report on the conclusions of the fourth meeting had not been finalized, but some points that would be included were activities to ensure universalization of the Convention, the compliance of State parties with their reporting obligations, the provision of technical assistance to States to help in the drafting of their reports, and the provision of adequate resources for the Working Group to allow it to carry out its mandate.

Exchange of Views with Head of Anti-Discrimination Unit

JOSÉ DOUGAN-BEACA, the Head of the Anti-Discrimination Unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the Unit was created to support the work of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Follow-Up to Durban, the Group of Experts on Populations of African Descent and the Group of Eminent Experts. Currently there were a number of topical issues to be addressed, including the emergence of new forms of racial discrimination. Today it was not just a question of identifying best practices for combating discrimination, but there was also a need to identify all the new forms and manifestations of that phenomenon.

The ensuing exchange of views with the Committee highlighted the challenge that faced the Committee in adapting its working methods to contemporary forms of racism, in particular the question of whether or not an additional protocol or special instrument to address cyber crime was needed or whether that issue was sufficiently covered by Article 4 of the Convention. The issue was particularly topical, one Expert remarked, in light of the recent furor over the publication of cartoon images of the Muslim Prophet and the ease with which those images could be disseminated over the Internet. In any case, it was observed, the Committee would have to await the outcome of United Nations reforms in the human rights area before any concrete steps could be taken.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CRD06005E