COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF URUGUAY
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the combined sixteenth through twentieth periodic report of Uruguay on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Presenting the report, Ricardo Gonzalez Arenas, Director General for Political Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, said that poverty continued to be the biggest violation of human rights, not only in Uruguay, but in the world, which deprived millions of people of their rights and fomented abuses and discrimination. Poverty represented multiple and simultaneous violations of economic, social and cultural rights and in the majority of situations poverty was transmitted from generation to generation. In this context, it was important to mention that in the last decade Uruguay had strengthened human rights and fundamental freedoms despite an economic crisis in 2001 and 2002 that was the most profound in the nation’s history. This meant that the Government had had to take a new look at social protection in Uruguay and since 2005 the State had adopted social policies to combat and reduce poverty and to provide emergency social services.
Mr. Arenas said that since their last appearance before the Committee, there had been many important legislative and institutional developments to safeguard human rights, including a 2004 law that declared the national fight against racism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination; a 2007 law for the promotion of equality of opportunities in rights in Uruguay; and a 2006 law for the protection of rural and domestic workers. Uruguay had also established a national human rights institution in keeping with the Paris Principles as well as the Commission against Racism, Xenophobia, and all Forms of Discrimination. In terms of access to justice, in 2009 the Supreme Court handed down a decision that protections had to be given to people in situations of vulnerability, including people belonging to ethnic minorities.
In preliminary concluding observations, Dilip Lahiri, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Uruguay, said that due to historical reasons there had been a profound distrust of the European descended population by indigenous peoples in Uruguay. Programmes and spending money would not be enough to deal with the problems of the indigenous and African descended communities, but tackling extreme poverty would go a long way in addressing disparities that existed between communities. There also seemed to be a problem translating principles into concrete actions. Mr. Lahiri concluded by welcoming the change of attitude in the State party toward minority groups and its willingness to address the issues facing these communities.
During the interactive discussion Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, the status of Afro descendents in the country, particularly women of African descent who often experienced multiple discrimination based on race, gender and socio-economic status. The Committee also asked the delegation about statistical data on people of African descent and indigenous people as there seemed to be a lack of information in this respect. Several Committee members asked about the upcoming census and what questions would be asked to encompass the ethno-racial dimensions of the country’s population. Numerous questions and concerns were raised about the national human rights institution that was established by law in 2008 but had yet to become operational. What was delaying the establishment of this institution, what would its powers be, how was it funded and what would be its budget, how would members be chosen, and how would its independence be assured? What affirmative action programmes or measures had been adopted by the country in relation to indigenous people and people of African descent? Committee Experts also wanted to know how their recommendations were actually implemented in the country and turned from principle to practice.
The delegation of Uruguay included representatives from the Ministry of Education and Culture, the Ministry of the Interior, the Department of Women of African Descent of the National Institute of Women in the Ministry of Social Development, and the Permanent Mission of Uruguay to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the report of Uruguay at the end of its session, which concludes on 11 March.
The next public meeting of the Committee will be at 10 a.m. on Monday, 21 February when it will hold an informal meeting with non-governmental organizations on the implementation of the Convention in Norway, Ireland, Spain and Serbia.
Report of Uruguay
The combined sixteenth through twentieth periodic report of Uruguay (CERD/C/URY/16-20) says Uruguay’s current commitment to non-discrimination cannot hide the fact that, from its beginnings as an independent State until well into the twentieth century, discrimination against people of African descent and the descendants of native indigenous peoples was present but invisible. The nation’s self-image as a white, integrated, homogeneous society hid great inequalities in opportunities for the effective realization of the rights of those communities. The historical and cultural legacy of people of African descent and indigenous people was considered of secondary importance.
Discrimination still persists, as is reflected in this report. It can be seen in the obstacles to taking educational opportunities, the unequal distribution of employment opportunities, differences in salary and income, and inadequate recognition of the cultural contribution of these communities to building the nation of Uruguay. In short, from the very start, people of African descent in particular have faced great inequality of opportunity, which hampers their human development and their chances of achieving their goals for the future.
At the moment, Uruguay is making progress towards recognizing the diversity of the ethnic groups that make up the country, and can point to their social integration and their cultural and symbolic integration. This process includes government action against racial discrimination, the production of official statistics on minorities, the establishment of new institutions specifically to ensure equal opportunities for people of African descent, recognition of their historical and cultural contribution, and the trend to consider race as a cross-cutting issue in public policy.
To provide a comprehensive approach to this situation, the Human Rights Directorate of the Ministry of Education and Culture is preparing a national plan against racism and discrimination. In addition, various State mechanisms were established to promote racial equity. Uruguay has been improving its legislation on gender-based discrimination, which compounds and aggravates racial discrimination, demonstrating a new approach to legislation on women’s rights. Although inequality persists and much remains to be done to meet international standards, a number of important steps have been taken in both the public and private sector. However, Uruguay recognizes that it has produced very little analysis or legislation on discrimination against women based on their ethic or racial origin.
Presentation of Report
RICARDO GONZALEZ ARENAS, Director General for Political Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, presenting the report of Uruguay, said that Uruguay functioned on two principles, the first being the recognition of the intrinsic dignity of the human being with no distinctions based on ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, political opinion, language, race, or any other reason. Uruguay was probably the most egalitarian State in the whole of Latin America. The second conviction was that democracy was the only political system capable of ensuring the human rights and dignity of all citizens and the fight against racism was inseparable from the existence of a democratic regime. These principles undergirded the system of human rights in Uruguay and the multilateral systems that protected these rights.
Poverty continued to be the biggest violation of human rights in the world which deprived millions of people of their rights and fomented abuses and discrimination. Poverty represented multiple and a simultaneous violation of economic, social and cultural rights and in the majority of situations poverty was transmitted from generation to generation. In this context it was important to mention that in the last decade Uruguay had strengthened human rights and fundamental freedoms despite an economic crisis in 2001 and 2002 that was the most profound in the nation’s history. This meant that the Government had had to take a new look at social protection in Uruguay and since 2005 the State had adopted social policies to combat and reduce poverty and to provide emergency social services.
In this context, education was a powerful tool to fight racist and discriminatory practices. Education must include the eradication of homophobia, xenophobia, racism and all forms of discrimination based on prejudices and social taboos that were reproduced from generation to generation.
There had been many important legislative and institutional developments to safeguard human rights, including a 2004 law that declared the national fight against racism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination; a 2007 law for the promotion of equality of opportunities in rights in Uruguay; and a 2006 law for the protection of rural and domestic workers. Uruguay had also established a national human rights institution in keeping with the Paris Principles as well as the Commission against Racism, Xenophobia, and all Forms of Discrimination.
The National Priority Programme for Female Health was designed to address the double or triple discrimination suffered by women of African descent due to race, ethnicity, religion and work. This programme gathered and integrated various ethnic and racial healthcare statistics which allowed for the development of better public policies to address healthcare disparities in a number of areas including domestic violence.
In terms of access to justice, Mr. Arenas said that in 2009 the Supreme Court handed down a decision that protections had to be given to people in situations of vulnerability, including people belonging to ethnic minorities. Regarding inclusiveness, 3 December was declared the National Day of Candombe, African and Uruguayan Racial Equality, which highlighted the contributions of African descended people to the culture and development of Uruguay. Also, every year 11 April was the day of the Charrua nation and indigenous identity, which also recognized the contributions of indigenous peoples to Uruguayan society.
JAVIER MIRANDA, Director of Human Rights for the Ministry of Education and Culture, said that Uruguay was in the process of developing a plan of action to combat racism and this process included civil society and academia. Between now and December they should be able to finish this work and draw up the national plan, whose objectives would run from 2012 to 2015, through the end of the current presidential term.
ALICIA SAURA, of the Commission against Racism, Xenophobia and other forms of Discrimination, said that this Commission was the first institutional body empowered to put forward concrete measures to combat discrimination. This was an essential area for civil society and the State to work together. The Commission was not a judicial or quasi-judicial body, but rather set out opinions in an advisory way, formulated corresponding judicial complaints, handed down decisions including criminal decisions, and drew up reports based on expertise of the Commission.
ALICIA ESQUIVEL, Chief of the Department of Women of African Descent of the National Institute of Women in the Ministry of Social Development, said the department was established to empower people of African descent, women in particular, to be full fledged citizens of the State. The department had a real budget and operational plan and in 2005 the Social Emergency Plan was approved which was aimed at reducing poverty levels. This plan was followed by the Equity Plan whose aim was to provide equality between men and women of all ages. In 2006, ethnic and racial elements were mainstreamed into the gender information institute. In 2009, the Minister of Social Development decided to incorporate the ethnic and racial approach into all the plans and programmes that fell under this Ministry, which made it possible to foster affirmative action for African descendents into all the programmes undertaken by that Ministry. Ms. Esquivel’s department monitored that all these norms were applied and it trained advisors and technical teams as well. It was also involved in awareness-raising and the maintenance of a database on Afro descended women which fit into a national network of Afro descended that was organized by the department and worked with civil society. They also promoted entrepreneurial activities for Afro descended women.
JAVIER MIRANDA, Director of Human Rights for the Ministry of Education and Culture, said he would provide more information on the national human rights institution in Uruguay. The body was established in accordance with the Paris Principles and compliant with the General Assembly resolution regarding the establishment of such national human rights institutions. To date, the institution was becoming operational and the law had been promulgated and was now in force. The members of the national human rights institution were being selected and the five permanent members would be independent of government and political parties; they would work with civil society organizations on an advisory basis. They were currently voting on the budget that would be earmarked for this body. Due to the elections taking place in 2009, it had not been possible to earmark money for the budget that year and during the first year of the new Government they had tabled the item.
RICARDO GONZALEZ ARENAS, Director General for Political Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, said that in terms of laws that sanctioned discrimination or racism, any person promoting an organization with a racist aim or participating in such an organization or inciting to hatred or violence due to race could be punished by up to five years in prison. Over time this criminal legislation had been fine tuned to take into account new racial discriminations and two new provisions had been introduced. There was also a law of cooperation between the International Court of Justice and Uruguay regarding crimes of genocide, including the intention or motive to destroy a national ethnic or racial group. This law said that Uruguay had the right and duty to try and sanction such behaviour.
ALICIA SAURA, of the Commission against Racism, Xenophobia and Other Forms of Discrimination, said that in terms of cases that had been dealt with by the justice system regarding racism and discrimination there was one about a skinhead group carrying out propaganda against Israelis and email attacks against people of African descent. In civilian courts, there were some cases that were still being adjudicated so she could not provide further details at this point. The Government planned to educate the judiciary and police officers about acts of discrimination; sometimes they did not recognize acts of violence as acts of discrimination for example.
RICARDO GONZALEZ ARENAS, Director General for Political Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, said that access to justice was made easier to people who were more vulnerable by providing free legal aid to people who did not have the resources to hire attorneys. A public defenders office was available to help these people. Throughout the country in every region, anyone who could not get a defence lawyer was given legal assistance paid for by the State. This situation was improved in 2009 by the Supreme Court’s adoption of the so-called Brasilia rules, measures to ensure that people in the most vulnerable situations could have access to the justice system. The rules had been adopted and they were a binding agreement for magistrates.
Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts
DILIP LAHIRI, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of Uruguay, said that Uruguay’s self-image as a white, integrated, homogenous society, the “Switzerland of America” had only recently become more inclusive. The vast majority, 87 per cent according to 2006 figures, of the 3.4 million residents were indeed white, mainly criollos from Italy and Spain. Unlike most other countries in the region, this population was expected to remain almost the same in 2025 because the birth rate was as low as that in Europe. Uruguayans had been moving abroad en masse for at least the last 39 years and there had not been a significant influx of immigration since the Second World War. Uruguay was thus an empty land with half the population concentrated in Montevideo. According to the same figures, 9 per cent of population was of African descent, 3 per cent were indigenous and 1 per cent was from other ethnic groups. Non-governmental organizations claimed the number of African descendents was higher. The original inhabitants of the country, the Guaranies and the Charruas, were assimilated and exterminated in the genocide of 1831 respectively. Afro Uruguayans were brought in as slaves in the 18th century and for most of their history, even after slavery was abolished, they had not been treated as regular citizens and in terms of educational, social and economic opportunity. Probably their most visible contribution had been their influence on music through dance and drums. The Afro influence on religion was also significant.
Uruguay was a middle income country and ranked high in almost every index of international aggregated development indicators. Uruguay had come a long way in promoting and protecting human rights since the end of the dictatorship in 1985 in which Uruguay had the dubious distinction of having the largest number of political detainees and whose legacy of impunity for serious crimes continued to create problems. The Rapporteur lamented the lack of disaggregated data and statistics and said that as a relatively prosperous society, it should not be difficult for Uruguay to gather this data and use it to improve the situation of its disadvantaged populations once it genuinely made up its mind to do so.
The Rapporteur asked for additional information on the national human rights institution that was established in 2008 and began functioning in 2010; disaggregated data on the prison population; the latest census figures; the applicability of international human rights instruments in domestic law; information on the racial/ethnic origins of elected officials; and any special measures taken to improve the employment situation of Afro descendents. Mr. Lahiri also asked whether special measures were envisaged to correct and reverse the situation of Afro descendents in education.
In terms of recommendations for the State party, the Rapporteur suggested that Uruguay mainstream an ethno-racial dimension into all governmental plans and policies; accelerate the collection and publication of disaggregated statistics by race and ethnicity to identify the location and extent of structural discrimination faced by Afro descendents; undertake research on the intersection of racial and gender discrimination; and undertake special measures in favour of Afro descendents and indigenous populations in the areas of health, education, employment and political representation. Mr. Lahiri also urged the State party to increase penalties for acts of racial discrimination, sensitize public opinion on this matter and publicize the availability of complaint and redress mechanisms; include the contributions of indigenous and African populations in educational curriculum; and collect information on the impact of ethnicity and race on the access to justice.
One Committee member said that the Uruguayan Government seemed to be making a genuine effort to recognize and return the identity of indigenous peoples, although there was very little mention of them in the State’s report. What was the perception of indigenous culture in society? Had any progress been made on the relevant International Labour Organization conventions regarding indigenous peoples?
What was the status of people who arrived in the territory, but whose status had not yet been determined? Had the State party considered ratifying the amendment to article 8 of the Convention? What was the hold up in adopting the national action plan against racism?
Committee members raised concerns about the status of Afro descended women who were discriminated against in employment. What special measures did the Government plan to take to address the double discrimination they experienced? Wasn’t it time the State party undertook efforts to gather numbers on political representation of Afro-Uruguayans in political life? The delegation was asked what it thought were the fundamental root causes of the discrimination seen in Uruguay. Was it structural or attributable to something else?
A Committee Expert asked how far the State had gotten in implementing the recommendations made after Uruguay’s Universal Periodic Review in areas such as corruption among law enforcement officials, conditions in prison, street children, and disparities in housing. Also, what were the budget allocations for Afro descended people and what activities were planned for the International Year for People of African Descent? Was there an Afro descended approach to childhood?
The delegation was also asked what exactly the mandate was of the national human rights commission. Also, what were its powers, especially given that it also acted as the ombudsman’s office?
Another Committee member commented that some of the statistical data and information might have been better presented as tables or graphs to make them easier to understand. What did the State party see as the most pressing problems in the country and how would it take the recommendations made by the Committee? Would it work with civil society to address the issues raised by the Committee? In terms of the national plan for education, the delegation had asked the Committee for recommendations on how education for minority groups and indigenous peoples could be improved, but how did the State party ensure that these decisions and recommendations were turned into effective action? Who would be affected by the Committee’s recommendations? How were people informed about the delegation’s meeting with the Committee and how was the outcome of this meeting disseminated to the people so that they were aware of the measures the State should be taking on their behalf? It was important to convey to people that Uruguay had changed and that minority people were full citizens now and everyone should know and feel that. Principles had to become effective in practice and laws had to be implemented.
A Committee member commended Uruguay for being able to provide free university education to its citizens, its high quality of life, its lack of corruption, and its low inequality rates for the region. There were lessons that everyone could learn from this country, and the Expert wished the State party the best of luck on the road to equality.
Response by Delegation
The delegation said that a whole set of tables had been provided to the Committee secretariat and this would be passed on to Committee members and in the future these tables would be included in the periodic reports.
The delegation said that today all the governmental programmes addressing discrimination had follow-up and assessment components to analyze their implementation and effectiveness so as to improve them if they showed deficiencies.
The delegation then went on to address the national human rights institution by saying that the national law which established the institution had been enacted in December 2008 and it was published in the official gazette of the State in January 2009. This meant that it was a law in force. In October and November 2009 there were national elections which meant that effectively setting up the institution was practically impossible during 2009 because the appointment of independent experts needed to be done after the new Government was in power. This was the only way to get the support of the political parties. The new Government was installed in March 2010 and the first year a new Government was in power a new five year budget was passed so this also had to be approved to allocate money for the institution. The budget was approved in February 2011, so this explained why the national human rights institution had taken so long to set up, considering the elections and new Government and new budget. It would still take a few more months to set up, but it would have a sufficient budget and independence for its members and a solid standing to ensure that it could operate properly. The United Nations system was the country’s best technical advisor in regards to this institution.
The national human rights institution was not a traditional ombudsman, but rather a defender of the people, which was a uniquely Latin American concept. Uruguay’s institution was a collective body and the reasoning was so that it was not just a body that received complaints of human rights violations, but also provided immediate replies and was an advisory body that put forth public policy proposals in the area of human rights. One of the problems that defenders of the people had was that they ended up being stuck with the complaints and they had little freedom to propose practical recommendations and norms to better the human rights situation. The national human rights institution had the right to receive and forward complaints, advise the State in the development of country reports for Committees, provide advice to parliament, and take legislative initiative for drafting new legal norms.
The State was in the process of building a national action plan against racism and discrimination in consultation with civil society and State bodies that would culminate in a plan that outlined actions to combat racial and other discrimination.
In terms of corruption, the delegation said that it was nonexistent in Uruguay and there was no embezzlement of State funds or funds from international cooperation. It was impossible to steal State funds because there was transparency and auditing mechanisms that prevented this, plus it was a matter of national character and pride that corruption was not tolerated or possible.
A number of questions referred to statistical matters and affirmative action policies. The delegation said that today’s numbers were not very different from those in 2006. Nine percent of the population self-identified as black, 2.9 per cent as indigenous and 87.4 as white. It was true that over the years there had been an increase in the number of people self-identifying as black, and this could be due to awareness-raising as well as a change in the way census questions were asked which led more people to self-identify as black. A new census would be carried out in 2011 and there would be additional black census enumerators, there had been an intensive awareness-raising campaign and the statistical unit had been working hard to include questions that incorporated the ethno-racial dynamic in census questions. A prison census had also been completed in January 2011 so this data was not yet available.
In terms of including the ethno-racial dimension in public policy, training had taken place for public policy makers and an inter-institutional working group had been established to help mainstream the ethno-racial dimension in their policies.
Turning to the empowerment of women, the delegation said that workshops had been held to strengthen racial, ethnic and gender identity, to promote women’s rights, to talk about aggravated forms of discrimination that black women suffered as a result of being black, female and poor, and to stress the importance of women’s associations and organizations. There had also been affirmative action initiatives undertaken to make sure that women asserted their rights and the State used the press, radio and television to disseminate information on these initiatives. The State was also working to increase the skilled workforce, particularly among black women who made up a large portion of unskilled, domestic workers. The State wanted to make sure that these women had access to micro-credits, technology, training, and anything else they needed to improve their skills and lives. A series of activities had been undertaken to increase equal opportunity and to make sure that Afro descended people were represented among policymakers. Affirmative action was not enough however; there had to be training provided, awareness-raising among the population about diversity, greater access to education at every level, and so on.
The delegation said that in terms of implementing the Committee’s recommendations, the first thing they did when they returned to the capital was to convene meetings with government bodies and civil society to disseminate these recommendations to the people and to the agencies responsible for implementing the recommendations. So the Committee could rest assured that the Committee’s concerns and recommendations would be transmitted to all concerned parties and acted on by the Government.
The delegation said that over the years the census questions concerning ethnicity and race had changed and each time the census was taken the statistical data became better and clearer in terms of the ethnic, racial and socioeconomic profile of the populations. In 2009 a national day of indigenous identity was established and it was celebrated on 11 April every year and the contributions of indigenous people to the country were also taught in schools. There was also a law that mandated affirmative action.
Turning to the issues of stateless persons and refugees and migration in Uruguay, the delegation said that from a historical perspective the constitution dealt with avoiding stateless very well. Citizenship could be obtained in two ways, by being born in Uruguay or born to Uruguayan parents abroad, or by becoming a naturalized citizen after being resident in the country for three years to five years. Dual citizenship was allowed as well, and one could never be stripped of one’s nationality. The parliament or general assembly could also grant citizenship to foreign nationals for some outstanding form of service to the country. Uruguay had given registration of births a high priority to combat statelessness, and this registration was fairly easy as the majority of births occurred in establishments.
There were updated laws on refugees and asylum seekers and international laws that Uruguay was party to were directly applicable in the country and enjoyed supremacy over domestic laws. The definition of refugee status was quite broad and generally included people fleeing from a country that had experienced any break down in public order. People who sought refugee status and were denied were recognized as migrants and allowed to stay in the country as migrants. There had been some voluntary returns of people who were classified as migrants and the law did allow for the collective expulsion of groups of migrants. People who entered the country illegally to claim refugee status were not subject to criminal penalties. Uruguay recognized family reunification as the right of refugees and relatives up to a fourth degree were all recognized unless particular clauses were applied. There were numerous provisions regarding children, including unaccompanied minors and stowaways, usually on ships arriving from Africa.
The asylum seeker was given a certificate that allowed them the same access to services as nationals; the certificate was good for one year. They also had access to travel papers and if there application was denied and they had no travel papers they were issued with travel documents that allowed them to exit the country and was good for one journey.
On migrants and permanent residency questions, the delegation said that migrant workers had temporary residency status along with their relatives and anyone else entering the country for humanitarian reasons. One could always request a change from one status to another. The National Commission for Migration had also looked into the issue of legalizing illegal residents in the country.
International human rights laws were invoked in Uruguay’s courts and they were self executing norms that were directly applicable in the country. Criminal legislation in Uruguay was applied to individuals, not organizations. Organizations which committed racial discrimination offences could be sanctioned by administrative measures such as non-recognition of their status or dissolution of their organization, but not criminal sanctions. This also applied to headquarters of political parties.
The delegation went on to say that Uruguay was in fact the most egalitarian State in the region in terms of income distribution according to a report released last year.
Further Questions Posed by Experts
In a further round of questions, a Committee Expert asked for further information on Afro descendents in the prison population, Afro descended entrepreneurs and any special approaches taken to education for Afro descended children. What specific programmes were geared toward Afro descendents and what were the budgetary allocations for this population? What specific actions were planned for this year and was there a budget targeted toward achieving a certain level of impact?
A Committee member asked for information on Uruguay and the Millennium Development Goals and clarification on criminal sanctions for discrimination.
Returning to the issue of segregation, an Expert asked about segregation that happened in society that was not the result of State policy, but rather due to societal views and prejudices. Also, how did the State go about restoring the identities of minority groups, which had not been recognized for many years?
A Committee member said the lack of racial discrimination complaints may reflect a problem with the justice system rather than a lack of discrimination in the country. The burden of proof fell on the victim in such cases, so perhaps the justice system needed to be more sensitive to this problem.
What administrative remedies existed to combat discrimination in the workplace or government jobs, such as offensive language or behaviour or denial of promotion?
It was not clear to one Committee member whether all the provisions of the Convention were self-executing and directly applicable in Uruguayan courts. It was important than national law fully incorporated the provisions of the Convention into domestic legislation.
Street children were allegedly subject to risks of trafficking for sexual exploitation, illegal sale and forced labour. Was there data available on this and was it a major problem in Uruguay? Were there measures that had been undertaken to address this particularly vulnerable group?
A Committee member was curious to know whether the composition of the population was changing and whether there was immigration and migration. When the delegation returned in ten years, what would the country look like then?
Response by Delegation
Concerning the assessment of the impact of the measures adopted to address people of African descent, the delegation said this was of particular concern to the State. There were some areas that had been successful in integrating an ethno-racial component in analyses such as healthcare and housing. This was an ongoing process and in future reports they would continue providing disaggregated data because many of these programs were started after 2005 so the impacts had not been fully assessed yet.
Concerning the timetable for the national plan against discrimination and racism, the plan had two stages including participatory investigation which was collaborative and included civil society. This would start in March 2011 and end in June 2011 and then they would start the process of validating the plan which would take from December 2011 until March 2012.
Uruguay was coming out of a harsh economic crisis that peaked in 2001 and 2002 in which tens of thousands of Uruguayans who were reduced to absolute grinding poverty and deprivation. Things had improved, but now they had to tackle the most hard core cases of poverty so the Millennium Development Goals were a national priority and something they owed the most vulnerable sections of the country. The efforts were ongoing and they were committed to them.
The penal code did criminalize discriminatory acts of individuals and there were administrative laws that dealt more with joining organizations and the dissolution of organizations that promoted illegal aims including the promotion of racism and discrimination.
The delegation said that in terms of recognizing the identities of indigenous people and African descendents this was a process of reclaiming those identities because for many years the contributions of these people had been invisible so it was a matter not only of Government programmes, but also social interactions to reach this goal.
According to the delegation, the way the system currently worked in terms of criminal cases, it was the judge who produced the proof, the complainant simply brought the case before the court so it was really up to the public prosecutor and the judge to investigate the case and come up with the proof. The delegation said that more could be done to train judges and prosecutors on these matters, however. In civil courts and non-criminal cases, people who made a claim had to meet what was called the dynamic burden of proof. In terms of the broader question of access to justice for minority groups and ethnic groups in Uruguay, the country had adopted the so-called Brasilia rules for access to justice for vulnerable groups. The rules contained recommendations for the improvement of judicial rules and procedures to benefit vulnerable groups, for example there were recommendations for admitting proof earlier in the process to make legal proceedings less time consuming and costly, both of which discouraged vulnerable people from filing and following through on complaints.
The Office of Labour and Social Security was empowered to receive complaints of workplace discrimination and impose sanctions. Victims could also file a complaint with the Commission against Racism and Discrimination; access to both agencies was free of charge.
Concerning the direct application of treaties, the delegation said when it came to penalties and sanctions they absolutely needed to establish domestic laws; having a crime without penalties was like a glass without water. They looked forward to recommendations from the Committee on this matter.
As regards street children, the delegation said that it was an important and serious qualitative problem. From the viewpoint of quantity it was not a major problem, but one street child was a matter of concern for the State party, especially if these kids were on the street due to extreme poverty or their racial background. The delegation said they had more detailed information they could provide to the Committee on this matter.
According to the delegation, the immigration pattern was changing in Uruguay. During the economic crisis in 2001 and 2001, many young people emigrated to other parts of the world to seek a better future. Since 2003, the economy had started producing jobs and Uruguay hardly felt the last economic crisis. Unemployment was the lowest it had ever been in the country’s history and those who had left were coming back because there was work at home. At the same time, there were projections that Uruguay would need immigrants to fill the jobs that were available, most likely from neighbouring countries. This would have repercussions on the demographic makeup of the country. They could only hope that it would be a better country in the future in terms of the quality of life and the monitoring and implementation of their fundamental rights and freedoms.
Preliminary Concluding Observations
In preliminary concluding observations, DILIP LAHIRI, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Uruguay, said that due to historical reasons there had been a profound distrust of the European descended population by indigenous peoples. Programmes and spending money would not be enough to deal with the problems of the indigenous and African descended communities, but tackling extreme poverty would go a long way in addressing disparities that existed between communities. There also seemed to be a problem translating principles into concrete actions. Mr. Lahiri welcomed the change of attitude in the State party toward minority groups and its willingness to address the issues facing these communities.
RICARDO GONZALEZ ARENAS, Director General for Political Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, thanked the Committee for the dialogue and participation in this process. Its recommendations and comments were extremely important for Uruguay as tools to further refine and deepen what had been done in the areas discussed. Uruguay’s commitment to battling racial discrimination was clear in words as well as action, both at home and abroad. They had accomplished a great deal, but looked to the Committee’s help to accomplish even more. Tackling poverty was a government priority and many of the measures to combat poverty had been undertaken in the last five to seven years.
For use of information media; not an official record
CERD11/006E