COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF TUNISIA

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the nineteenth periodic report of Tunisia on how that country implements the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Abdelwaheb Jemal, Permanent Representative of Tunisia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the report gave a perspective on the efforts made in the field of the fight against all forms of racial discrimination at a time when Tunisia was implementing great reforms in order to further advance its modernist, egalitarian and inclusive social project, and to face up to all the forces that were threatening progress in that project. Tunisia was determined to ensure the ideal conditions to achieve better harmony and co-existence between individuals and groups. The numerous reforms introduced at the level of the construction of the state of law, the reinforcement of rights and liberties, the reinforcement of justice, the transmission of the human rights culture, and the ever-growing commitment of United Nations and regional mechanisms showed Tunisia's will to ensure the best conditions for its citizens.

Among questions and issues raised by the Committee were allegations on the official Constitutional negation of Amazir rights and the economic exclusion of the Berber-speaking areas; the need for a national law on refugees and whether there were administrative measures dealing with refugees and asylum requests; why racial discrimination was linked in several situations to terrorism, when there was no link whatsoever; whether there had been abuses of authority on a basis of ethnic and/or religious discrimination; why there was no bilingual education in order to ensure the continuation of minority cultures; the use of the word "homogeneity" in the report and its contradiction with the idea of the plurality of cultures; and the need to include ethnic statistics in the next report.

In concluding remarks, Alexei S. Avtonomov, the Committee Expert functioning as Rapporteur for the report of Tunisia, said the Committee was satisfied with the very sincere and open nature of the dialogue and also happy to see the delegation's interest in pursuing the dialogue. The opinions of certain members of the Committee and of the delegation did not necessarily tally, but generally speaking, the requisites of the Convention were being fulfilled. It was important to have mutual understanding, without which no positive comments could be made. There had been a positive dialogue, and the Committee was satisfied with this. The Committee would note what follow-up information it wished to receive in a year.

Also in concluding remarks, Fatimata-Binta Victoire Dah, Chairperson of the Committee, said Tunisia had been precise, detailed and exhaustive in its response, taking the Committee unawares, but showing that it attached a great deal of importance to the dialogue. It was through this dialogue that progress could be made, and Tunisia should continue to submit regular reports.

The delegation of Tunisia also included representatives of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the National Institute of Statistics, and a University.

The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the eighteenth and nineteenth periodic reports of Tunisia, which were presented in one document, at the end of its session, which concludes on 6 March.

The next meeting of the Committee will be at 3 p.m. this afternoon when it is scheduled to take up the nineteenth periodic report of Bulgaria (CERD/C/BGR/19).

Report of Tunisia

The nineteenth periodic report of Tunisia (CERD/C/TUN/19) says that although the Committee has stated clearly that it “does not accept any State party’s assertion that there is no racial discrimination in the State party, and recommends that Tunisia avoid such generalizations in future reports”, it must be reaffirmed that the phenomenon of racial discrimination is basically non-existent in Tunisia. Providing some recent socio-economic data, the report notes that, in 2006, the population of Tunisia was approximately 10.1 million. The number of Tunisians who are not Muslims is estimated to be 5,000, of whom 3,000 are Jews and the remainder Christians. Furthermore, the Berbers of Tunisia are particularly well integrated into Tunisian society and they have no grievances and there are no nomadic tribes in Tunisia. With regard to the Jews, their departure to France may be due to the fact that they wish to live in the West, but they remain in continual contact with the country and like to return very frequently. There has never been any desire on the part of the Government or any other body to seek or provoke the departure of the Jews. In addition, some 25,000 foreigners work in Tunisia, mostly nationals of neighbouring countries (Moroccans, Algerians or Egyptians) as well as some Europeans employed by foreign companies. In that regard, Tunisia has ratified all relevant Conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) regarding equality of treatment of nationals and non-nationals in the areas of employment and occupation and in terms of remuneration and social protection.

There is no disadvantaged racial group in Tunisia whose situation would require the adoption of provisional measures for the purpose of guaranteeing that group’s enjoyment of its human rights and fundamental freedoms in the economic, social, cultural, political or other fields. The notion of “race” is not current in Tunisia and that of “tribe” has not been current since the country became independent in 1956. The State does not sponsor, defend or support activities of a discriminatory nature; it prohibits them inasmuch as they are absolutely incompatible with the Constitution, which stipulates that “all citizens have the same rights and the same duties” and that they “are equal before the law”. Tunisian legislation and regulations respect and comply with this constitutional requirement.

Tunisian law clearly prohibits all forms of incitement to acts of racial discrimination and contains a number of provisions that characterize incitement to racial hatred and all acts of intolerance or racist violence as punishable offences. Moreover, the Tunisian courts are committed to taking a strong line, in the rare criminal cases that come before them, against all propaganda in favour of any kind of religious or racial hatred and discrimination. In one particular case that became famous because it was so unusual, the Tunis Appeal Court decided on 28 March 1995, to uphold the sentencing of a Tunisian defendant to three years’ imprisonment and three years’ administrative supervision for preparing and distributing pamphlets on behalf of the Committee to Combat Normalization and “Zionization”, in which he urged people to rise up against the Jews and to oppose any form of agreement with them, stressing in particular the need to fight them and to reject any peace process with them.

Presentation of Report

ABDELWAHEB JEMAL, Permanent Representative of Tunisia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, presenting the report, said the presentation of the reports and the interactive and constructive dialogue with the Committee were indicative of Tunisia's will to cooperate with United Nations mechanisms and to bring the dialogue to fruition and enhance cooperation with the aim of emphasising the importance of the fight against all forms of racial discrimination. The report gave a perspective on the efforts made in the field of the fight against all forms of racial discrimination at a time when Tunisia was implementing great reforms in order to further advance its modernist, egalitarian and inclusive social project, and to face up to all the forces that were threatening progress in that project. Tunisia was determined to ensure the ideal conditions to achieve better harmony and co-existence between individuals and groups. The numerous reforms introduced at the level of the construction of the state of law, the reinforcement of rights and liberties, the reinforcement of justice, the transmission of the human rights culture, and the ever-growing commitment of United Nations and regional mechanisms showed Tunisia's will to ensure the best conditions for its citizens.

Since achieving independence, Tunisia had not ceased to support the multiple groups that made up its society and its historical heritage in a country that was open, whilst remaining firmly anchored by its historical roots. Tunisia had made sure that tolerance was not only a humanist value that was consecrated in every-day life, but also a political and constitutional value. This and others showed that the actions undertaken by Tunisia with the aim of eradicating all forms of ethnic, religious or racial discrimination had its roots in the humanist values that ran parallel to the national cultural heritage. This was what ensured that issues relative to indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities and religious sects almost did not exist in Tunisia. The Berber population was made up of full citizens who were entirely integrated in the social body. Similarly, non-Muslim Tunisian citizens were also integrated within society, and lived in symbiosis with the rest of the population, including the Jewish and Christian communities. There was thus no need for special measures to defend these populations.

Today's report showed that what had been achieved in Tunisia, in the geographical and cultural context that was its own, was considerable, and required to be consolidated in a context that took into account the challenges which Tunisia, along with most countries in the world, faced. In the region, terrorism was not a view of the spirit. Tunisia was fighting extremism, intolerance and obscurantism that were deployed for political purposes. With regards to the negative effects of globalisation of the economy, there were grounds to suspect that they were negatively affecting what had been achieved in the field of economic and social rights, and to impede the fight against poverty. Taking into account all these challenges led to political will in Tunisia, as well as the will of the civil society and intellectuals to keep in mind the need to continue on the path of protection and promotion of human rights. Tunisia remained committed to advancing forward in this path, despite real threats linked to the important threats that were posed by the rise of all forms of terrorism, extremism, fanaticism, intolerance, racism, xenophobia and defamation of religions, and called upon the international community as a whole to join in efforts to stifle the chorus of hate and of shock of civilisations and cultures.

Response by the Delegation to Written Questions Submitted in Advance

Responding to the list of issues submitted by the Committee in advance, the delegation said that the Constitution provided a definition of the fact that all were equal before the law - the legal system was based on the equality of all citizens before justice, without discrimination, and effective legal recourse without limitation of this right. There were mechanisms which allowed Tunisians, without discrimination, to have recourse for any form of human rights violation. The Constitution provided all with the right to participate in the political life of the country, to be a candidate and take part in public affairs, and accede to public office. The right to freedom of thought was guaranteed to all. Tunisian legislation provided for legal sanction to any defamation of any group of persons belonging to a specific right or religion, and the right to peaceful assembly was guaranteed to all.

On economic, social and cultural rights, the right to education and professional training was guaranteed by the public education system, which was open to all of school age without exclusion. The right to unemployment benefits was also a right that was enshrined by the State, as was the right to organise and the right to housing without discrimination. Four out of five homes were owned by their inhabitant. A great effort had been made to extend social cover to 90 per cent of the population, without discrimination, and social coverage was now at 92 per cent. There were a number of solidarity funds. Social protection of vulnerable categories was extended without any form of discrimination whatsoever. Special assistance was given to the disabled and orphans in order to ensure their social education.

Efforts had been made to achieve a society based on equality, with the promotion of policies improving the legal and judicial status of women and encouraging their protection. Women occupied 60 per cent of positions as doctors and a number of other posts. The prohibition of incitement to racial violence was ensured by the law. Political parties had to contribute to the values of respecting others, regardless of their ethnic or religious background. Students were prepared at school for a life in which there was no discrimination - there had been a revision of school textbooks to ban any stereotypical images showing women as inferior, and the need to avoid religious conflict had also been addressed. Mass media and television networks, the public and private radio and newspapers also worked to promote a culture of difference and non-discrimination - Tunisia banned chauvinism, and encouraged humanism. Berbers suffered no form of discrimination whatsoever, including at the educational level.

Oral Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts

ALEXEI S. AVTONOMOV, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of Tunisia, said the reports and oral presentation contained a minute analysis, and this was a good start to the dialogue, which should be mutually beneficial and interesting on the problems that were facing Tunisia in the implementation of the Convention. Tunisia was well known as a country attached to the promotion of human rights, and it was a party to almost all international human rights instruments. It was very important for all countries to implement and ratify these - but Tunisia had also ratified regional instruments such as the African Human Rights Charter. Tunisia's success in combating poverty and illiteracy, among others, were noted - Tunisia was in the vanguard of equality between men and women, and that was very important for all countries, particularly the Mediterranean countries. The adoption of law number 2008/37 was welcomed, as this harmonised the mandate of the Higher Committee for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, the amendment to article 8 of the Convention had not been ratified. There were no traces of a certain people in the official statistics - the Berber-speaking population was officially invisible, and the delegation should explain whether a programme would be introduced in schools for people who wished to study the Berber language or other minority languages.

Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, whether the independence of the Higher Committee for Human Rights was provided for fully; allegations on the official Constitutional negation of Amazir rights and the economic exclusion of the Berber-speaking areas; the need for a national law on refugees and whether there were administrative measures dealing with refugees and asylum requests; whether non-refoulement was always respected; the situation with regards to women's rights; whether there were any plans for training programmes to allow the Berber population to use their language when interacting with the administration; why racial discrimination was linked in several situations to terrorism, when there was no link whatsoever; whether there had been abuses of authority on a basis of ethnic and/or religious discrimination; why there was no bilingual education in order to ensure the continuation of minority cultures; what were the disadvantaged areas and what measures had been taken to ensure their economic and social development, and whether special measures would be necessary to cover any potential minorities within those areas; and whether it was possible to choose a child's name freely.

Response by Delegation

Responding to these questions and others, Mr. Jemal said with regards to the marked drop in the birth rate and the consequences this could have on the growth and development of Tunisia, this had indeed had an influence on demographic indicators, and could have both positive and negative effects on economic indicators. This drop should be stabilised at about 1.75 children per woman - this figure would be reached in 2024, with a population of just under 13 million that year. At the moment, there was just over 10 million. Employment was and would remain the priority of development programmes. The drop in the birth rate was therefore an indicator of good control of demographics, and would in the medium and long-term have a beneficial effect on the economy and development of Tunisia. Citizens from sub-Saharan Africa resident in Tunisia were over 2,000, and this was mainly due to the African Development Bank being in Tunis. There were a relatively substantial number of tourists visiting, with more than 4 million visiting from Europe, and 2.8 million from the other Maghreb States. There was a significant repeat visit rate - Tunisia was a quality tourist destination, with an atmosphere of tolerance in the country.

With regards to the Government's development policy, particularly in less-favoured areas, Mr. Jemal said that in Tunisia's development model, the economic and social dimensions were intertwined, and clear efforts had been made to put these policies in place. The National Solidarity Fund, created in 1992, had the basic mission to provide proper infrastructures in the less-favoured areas such as water, health, education, roads and others, and to improve the income of people living in these areas, so they could benefit from credit, loans, and subsidies. Tunisia wanted to get rid of the welfare-dependent mentality that existed in some regions. The Fund had intervened in several hundred zones, over all areas of the country, and almost a million had benefited from its support. This Fund was different from other development funds, in a sense that it was funded by voluntary contributions from individuals and companies, and from funding provided by the State. Other mechanisms also supported efforts in the country to eliminate poverty, such as the National Employment Fund. The success of the Solidarity Fund had however gone beyond the borders of Tunisia.

Tunisia had always promoted the full development of multiple identities that had contributed to its historical heritage and to its society, Mr. Jemal said. Tunisian history was made up of different cultures and civilisations, leading to diversity and inter-culturality, a mixture of cultures, and had also led to the cohesion and unity of the Tunisian people. The delegation said "Tunisian-ness" did not mean assimilation, nor a denial of the diversity of Tunisian society. This was a concept which aimed at translating the richness of a people, forged by a long history, a people that could not be reduced to one or other of its multiple components, as no single one gave a true picture of the whole. Tunisians were Berber, Phoenicians, Jews, Vandals, Byzantines, Arabs, and so forth. The mixing of these races and ethnic groups had become stabilised within the present borders - to define this mixed blood people by the space around it was to confine it to one dimension - thus the concept of Tunisian-ness, which was a culture that was the sum total of all the cultures that had been thrown into the melting-pot.

Homogeneity did not mean a monolithic structure, nor the negation of differences. A homogenous society was made up of different groups and individuals who nevertheless shared certain facets - they lived together in solidarity and tolerance, and were bound together by the social contract, the delegation said. In a recent study, the Berber community had been estimated at about 60,000 to 100,000. The Berber language belonged to the Semitic family, and had never been written, except for exceptional times, despite having its own alphabet, and it existed in three or four thousand local varieties. That the Berbers were an ethnic minority did not mean that their specificities were denied. They freely practiced their religion, with a "clergy" of their own. There were no obstacles in the way of the artistic or cultural expression of the Berbers. This aspect of Tunisian history was not denied, and was taught. Schools provided modern teaching, based on a critical approach, and with competitive examinations. Tunisian identity was not part of murderous identities, it was a peaceful and harmonious identity.

On amendments to the Convention, the delegation said Tunisia was studying the ratification of these articles. Regarding the Higher Committee for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, there was an independent National Human Rights Institution, related to that Committee. The Committee was made up of a Chairman and 15 members, who were recognised for their competence in human rights and fundamental freedoms, representing different opinions and different areas of expertise, including jurors, doctors, psychologists, former members of the treaty bodies including the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, former Ministers, and others. If Tunisia had no specific law at present on refugees, it did have a legal framework, including the ratification of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, accession to the Protocol on the Status of Refugees, and the ratification of the OAU Convention on Refugees in Africa. The absence of a specific law could be explained by historical reasons - at the beginning of its independence, the Government requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to provide assistance, as there were several thousand Algerian refugees in Tunisia at the time. In 2004, there were about 90 refugees - in 2007 there were 94.

With regards to the fight against terrorism, and the fight against religious hatred, and the law related to supporting international efforts to combat terrorism and money-laundering, the delegation said these two violations were covered by the same regime. Defamation carried out through the press or any other means of defamation of a group of people for their race or religion was punished by six months imprisonment and a fine. With regards to measures taken by the Government to guarantee Berber associations to be created, public administrators had tried to simplify the rules for the setting up of associations in order to encourage the setting up of non-governmental organizations. A law had been promulgated in 1992 which had created new rules for the associations, before which there were only two types - domestic associations and foreign associations. In the 1992 law, there were new types of association, such as women, sporting, or development associations. The 1992 amendment had also strengthened non-discrimination as regards to belonging to any association.

On illegal immigrants, the delegation said with regards to the protection they enjoyed, illegal immigration was a violation of Tunisia's Criminal Law, although there was a law which had been adopted to amend this and which stipulated that illegal immigration was punished by imprisonment and a fine. A University Chair had been created to promote the dialogue between civilisations and promote the well-being of men, with the aim of ensuring that the dialogue between religions, civilisations and cultures were taken further, disseminating the values of tolerance and understanding between peoples and cultures, Mr. Jemal said. Various migrations had forged the plural identities of Tunisians, creating a fertile metissage that had characterised its society, and it was worth spending time on these facts.

Plural cultural unity meant that there was no exclusion of any Tunisian, independent of their education, origin, or colour, the delegation said. It implied the right to an identity that was open to inter-cultural dialogue and to exchanges with others, and to rejection of xenophobia, and inward-looking attitudes, and also implied the right to the recognition of layers of history, meaning that Tunisia tried to safeguard its natural and cultural heritage, implying the right to leisure and recreation, as well as civism and the defence against brutality. Plural unity was a fact, not a fixed ideological position, and was fully supported by the State. Tunisia was dynamic and open, and a land of paradoxes. Racism was not institutionalised, and racist views would never be expressed, for instance, in the Chamber of Deputies. Slavery had been abolished in 1846, and women emancipated half a century ago, giving them rights, and these two unprecedented modern acts had been hailed by observers. If there were racial discrimination, this was to be found in individual attitudes or behaviour. There was no racial segregation at work, or as regarded access to schools or any other area. Radio broadcasts in recent years had discussed the issue, as had dramas in schools, questioning attitudes which could lead to racial discrimination. Tunisia welcomed African students every year, and they had access to the same rights as Tunisian students, with access to Universities, transport, homes, and other services at symbolic prices.

Further Oral Questions Posed by Experts

In follow-up questions and comments, Experts raised a range of issues, including the use of the word "homogeneity" in the report and its contradiction with the idea of the plurality of cultures as it had certain negative connotations; the importance of enlightenment theory and humanist perceptions; the wide range of human rights instruments that had been adopted by Tunisia; the need to include in the next report full respect for the Berber culture; issues related to ill-treatment by the police force; the fact that discrimination based on appearance existed in every country; and the need to include ethnic statistics in the next report.

Replies by the Delegation

Responding to those questions and others, Mr. Jemal said that he was pleased at the reaction of the Experts. There was no need to react to these, but Tunisia would take note of them and how they had enriched the debate of the Committee.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

In preliminary concluding observations, Alexei S. Avtonomov, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Tunisia, said it was impossible for him to say what the Committee's comments or observations would be, as this depended on the collective wisdom of the Committee, which was what underpinned observations and recommendations. Generally speaking, however, bearing in mind the comments made today, the Committee was satisfied with the very sincere and open nature of the dialogue and also happy to see the delegation's interest in pursuing the dialogue. The opinions of certain members of the Committee and of the delegation did not necessarily tally, but generally speaking, the requisites of the Convention were being fulfilled. All the discussion relating to the implementation of the Convention in Tunisia was very important for the Committee, putting it in a position to make recommendations to State parties. It was impossible to draft a general recommendation for all countries, although the Convention itself was universal. Generally speaking, each country had its own specificities, and this was precisely why there was a need to have discussions. It was extremely important for the Committee to be in a position to make applicable recommendations, which could be put in practice in the country. It was important to have mutual understanding, without which no positive comments could be made. There had been a positive dialogue, and the Committee was satisfied with this. The Committee would note what follow-up information it wished to receive in a year.

Also in concluding remarks, Fatimata-Binta Victoire Dah, Chairperson of the Committee, said the Committee collectively would adopt the conclusions and final observations, and Tunisia would receive these towards the end of the session. She was quite satisfied with the dialogue, as Tunisia had been precise, detailed and exhaustive in its response, taking the Committee unawares, but showing that it attached a great deal of importance to the dialogue. It was through this dialogue that progress could be made, and Tunisia should continue to submit regular reports. It should, however, also adopt the amendment to article 8 of the Convention. Tunisia was an example in Africa for women's rights, and it could be an example world-wide in this regard - however there were no women in the delegation. Perhaps this should be remedied next time, and the National Commission on Human Rights should also be present, being able to provide further information, allowing the Committee to quantify and measure the progress that had been made.

ABDELWAHEB JEMAL, Permanent Representative of Tunisia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, in concluding remarks, said that indeed the delegation was all men, but there were some representatives from civil society who were women. He had been in his position for just two months, and the few days that he had spent in his post and in his relations with the United Nations Office at Geneva, he had much to learn. In preparing the meeting, he had been rather apprehensive. Life was a learning process, and Tunisia would continue to learn, including in its contacts with the Committee. Tunisia would continue on the path of progress.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CERD09003E