COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION OPENS SEVENTY-FIRST SESSION

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning opened its seventy-first session at the Palais Wilson in Geneva. The Committee adopted its agenda and programme of work for the session, during which it will consider the reports of Costa Rica, New Zealand, Kyrgyzstan, Mozambique, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and Moldova. The Committee also heard an address by Kyung-wha Kang, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Régis de Gouttes, Committee Chairperson, in opening remarks, observed that the session was opening at a time when there were many grave ethnic and racial problems in the world, which he felt called for a response from the Committee. The Committee had an obligation to meet the expectations of the international community.

Kyung-wha Kang, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that, of particular interest to the Committee was the decision adopted by the Human Rights Council at its fifth session on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. Guidelines for the modalities of the review were being drafted and were due to be approved by the Council in September. The first 16 countries would be considered in February 2008. Both the President of the Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights had clearly indicated that they did not wish to see the review mechanism and the treaty body procedures compete with or undercut one another. It was hoped, on the contrary, that the synergies of both mechanisms would enhance the promotion and protection of human rights.

Turning to the work of the Committee's present session, Ms. Kang said that the Committee would consider eight State party reports and several country situations under its early warning and urgent action procedures, as well as two communications under article 14 of the Convention and several follow-up reports from States parties. Furthermore, the Committee would continue its work on revised reporting guidelines and would hold its second meeting with States parties to explore how its work could be enhanced in an effective and mutually beneficial manner which contributed to further the protection of rights-holders. The Committee would also hold its first dialogue with Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.

In the ensuing discussion with the Deputy High Commissioner, Experts expressed their concern to preserve the full independence of the treaty bodies in the context of the Universal Periodic Review. With regard to the Durban Review process, the recommendations and submissions of the Committee, in view of its mandate, should be given priority attention, Experts said.

Later in the morning, the Committee also heard presentations from, and held discussions with, a representative of the International Labour Organization and the Coordinator of the National Institutions Unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to take up the seventeenth and eighteenth periodic reports of Costa Rica (CERD/C/CRI/18).


Statements

KYUNG-WHA KANG, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that, since the Committee’s last session, the Human Rights Council had held its fourth and fifth sessions. Of particular interest to the Committee was the Council’s decision adopted at its fifth session on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, which constituted the most innovative feature of the Council's work. The review would be based on a compilation by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) of several documents. That compilation would be facilitated by the new universal human rights index (http://www.universalhumanrightsindex.org/en), the responsibility for which had recently been transferred to OHCHR. The index contained and systematized in 39 thematic clusters all the conclusions and recommendations of treaty bodies, as well as the reports of special procedures mandate holders for the last five years.

The Universal Periodic Review would take place through a three-hour review of each country every four years in a working group composed of all 47 Council members, Ms. Kang said. Three rapporteurs would be identified to facilitate each review, the aim of which was an interactive dialogue between the country under review and the Council. The report adopted by the working group for each country reviewed would be discussed and adopted by the plenary of the Council, with the full involvement of the State concerned. The outcome might include, among others, an objective assessment of the human rights situation in the country reviewed; the sharing of best practices; an emphasis on the importance of enhancing cooperation; provision of technical assistance and capacity building; and voluntary commitments and pledges by the State. Guidelines for the modalities of the review were being drafted and were due to be approved by the Council in September. The first 16 countries scheduled for review would be considered in February 2008.

Both the President of the Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights had clearly indicated that they did not wish to see the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and the treaty body procedures compete with or undercut one another, Ms. Kang stressed. It was hoped, on the contrary, that the synergies of both mechanisms would enhance the promotion and protection of human rights. At their nineteenth meeting held last month, the chairpersons of treaty bodies had a thorough discussion on the new mechanism with the former President of the Human Rights Council and with the special procedures mandate holders. The chairpersons appreciated that the findings and recommendations of treaty bodies would form part of the basis for the review and had highlighted the role of the concluding observations in that regard.

The Human Rights Council had decided at its third session that it would act as the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference and that the first organizational session would be held in 2007. Furthermore, two substantive sessions of 10 working days would be organized in 2007 and 2008 in Geneva for that purpose. The Committee, along with other relevant stakeholders, had been requested by the Council resolution to assist the Preparatory Committee and submit recommendations as contributions to the outcome of the Conference. Ms. Kang highlighted that the first organizational session of the Preparatory Committee would be held in Geneva from 27 to 31 August.

Turning to the treaty body system, the sixth Inter-Committee Meeting and the nineteenth Meeting of Treaty Bodies Chairpersons had been held in June 2007. Discussions in those meetings had focused once again on progress made by treaty bodies in streamlining their working methods, drawing from each other's experience in the process, with a view to ensuring that the treaty body system provided the best possible protection for rights-holders. In that regard, the Inter-Committee Meeting had considered reports of the working group on harmonization of working methods, and later it would make recommendations for the improvement and harmonization of the working methods of treaty bodies. The sixth Meeting also provided an occasion to continue discussion of ways to enhance cooperation of treaty bodies with United Nations specialized agencies, funds and programmes, non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions. Related meetings included a meeting of treaty body representatives with the International Law Commission (15 to 16 May 2007), attended by Committee Expert Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos. Ms. Kang was sure that the Chairperson and Mr. Sicilianos would provide further information on these meetings during the course of the session.

Highlighting activities of the High Commissioner, Ms. Kang noted that the High Commissioner had undertaken two substantial missions over the past few months – one to the Great Lakes region of Africa and one to Central Asia, including Kyrgyzstan, whose second periodic report the Committee was considering at its present session. From 9 to 14 July, the High Commissioner also carried out a visit to Indonesia, whose initial report the Committee was scheduled to consider.

In its work to increase the awareness of the work of treaty bodies, Ms. Kang noted that the OHCHR office had continued to undertake training workshops to strengthen the capacity of key target groups, like national human rights institutions, non-governmental organizations and the media to support and facilitate implementation of concluding observations at the national level. The Office was also developing a web page that would provide information on OHCHR and treaty body specific activities on the follow-up to concluding observations.

Turning to the work of the Committee's present session, Ms. Kang noted that, for the first time, the Committee would have briefings by representatives of the specialized agencies, as well as by the coordinator of the National Institutions Unit of OHCHR. During the session, the Committee would consider eight State party reports and several country situations under its early warning and urgent action procedures, as well as two communications under article 14 of the Convention and several follow-up reports from States parties. Furthermore, the Committee would continue its work on revised reporting guidelines and would hold its second meeting with States parties to explore how its work could be enhanced in an effective and mutually beneficial manner which contributed to further the protection of rights-holders. The Committee would also hold its first dialogue with Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.

On a final note, Ms. Kang said that Alessio Bruni, acting Chief of the Treaties and Council Branch, had retired on 1 July after 32 years of service. Ibrahim Salama had been appointed as the new Chief, and would be starting his duties this August.

MARTIN OELZ, Legal Officer at the International Labour Standards Department of the International Labour Organization (ILO), said that it was more important now than ever that the ILO and the United Nations worked closely together to address racial discrimination. ILO Convention No. 111, on discrimination in respect of employment, was the instrument that had the most direct relevance to the Committee's mandate. As both the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination and ILO Convention No. 111 had both reached a comparatively high number of ratifications, ILO believed that ILO and the UN should focus their work together on those instruments to ensure that efforts to combat racial discrimination bore fruit. Cooperation with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was therefore of great importance. The ILO Committee of Experts also regularly used the conclusions of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its work, as well as the General Comments formulated by the Committee, in particular on the Roma and on non-nationals.

Turning to what the ILO had to offer, Mr. Oelz noted the greater specificity of ILO standards. Also, it was able to access certain thematic issues that the Committee was not, such as caste-based discrimination. In that regard, the ILO had been able to dialogue with India with regard to its Convention No. 111.

The ILO had issued its comprehensive report on discrimination in the labour arena in June, and would provide copies to the Committee, Mr. Oelz said. The report looked at areas such as structural discrimination; indirect discrimination; poverty exclusion and ethnicity; and a comparative look at affirmative action schemes in places such as Canada, Namibia, the United Kingdom and India.

An important issue that ILO tried to push was the importance not only of having and enforcing anti-discrimination laws, but the elaboration of policies to address discrimination. Convention 111 obliged parties to develop effective policies to better the situation of vulnerable and unprotected groups, especially indigenous peoples. While there was a specific ILO instrument on indigenous peoples, Mr. Oelz noted that it had not been widely ratified, and therefore in this area ILO was focusing its work through the broader Convention No. 111.

GIANNI MAGAZZENI, Coordinator of the National Institutions Unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), said he wanted to focus on the important role that national institutions had in the treaty body process. The High Commissioner attached great importance to the development and strengthening of national human rights protection systems, as set out in the Secretary-General's Agenda for Further Change (2002). As outlined in the OHCHR’s 2005 Plan of Action and the resulting Strategic Management Plan, an enhanced country engagement and an increased focus on national human rights protection system was crucial to addressing human rights challenges and protection gaps. Indeed, in her address to the nineteenth session of the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions on 21 March, the High Commissioner had said that national human rights institutions were the best relay mechanism at country level to ensure the application of international human rights norms, for example through monitoring the State's follow up to recommendations of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies, as well as the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council.

National human rights institutions could also be instrumental for the reform and strengthening of judicial and security institutions, including the police and prison administrations, and all sectors of the rule of law, for instance, by monitoring the application of standards of good governance. National human rights institutions also had a unique capacity to address, inform, prevent and eliminate potential race-related problems within society, and to promote respect for the enjoyment of human rights without any discrimination, Mr. Magazzeni stressed. The role of national human rights institutions had already been recognized by the Committee in its General Comment No. 17, in which, among others, the Committee recommended that States parties establish national commissions or other appropriate bodies, taking account of the Paris Principles.

As was known, in November 2006, a conference had been held to discuss the role of national human rights institutions in the treaty body process in Berlin, Mr. Magazzeni recalled. National human rights institutions and treaty bodies had participated and had also discussed a draft harmonized approach with respect to treaty bodies. Those guidelines had been officially adopted by the International Coordinating Committee in March 2007, and provided, among others, for the provision of information by national human rights institutions to treaty bodies when drafting their lists of issues; and a strong role for such institutions in follow-up to treaty body concluding observations.

Mr. Magazzeni encouraged the Committee, when deliberating and discussing with States parties, to emphasize the importance of States to involve their national human rights institutions actively in the national processes. Treaty bodies could emphasize also the importance of having national human rights institutions that fully complied with the Paris Principles, especially that they were independent.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CERD07016E