COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF SURINAME

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today completed its consideration, begun yesterday afternoon, of the combined eleventh and twelfth periodic report of Suriname on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Committee also reviewed the situation in Gambia, in the absence of a report, under its review procedure for countries whose reports are extremely overdue.

Presenting the report, Henry L. Mac Donald, Permanent Representative of Suriname to the United Nations in New York, said that, with regard to the rights of indigenous and tribal communities to possess, develop, control and use their communal lands, small but incremental steps had been undertaken to continue the honest and frank discussion, in close cooperation with target groups, in order to find a solution to an incredibly complex issue. The State had signed a memorandum of understanding with the Amazon Conservation Team (ACT) to help demark the territories of tribal people, and since 2005 ACT-Suriname had assisted the indigenous groups in their struggle for rights to land and natural resources. At present, ACT-Suriname had conducted research on community relationships with land and the framework for land rights, had organized several capacity-building workshops with indigenous peoples, Maroons and Government representatives, and had contributed to mapping most of South Suriname.

The issue of authorization of concessions for minerals and the associated infrastructure projects and the possible harm that might cause to indigenous and tribal communities was also given due consideration by the Government against the background of its responsibility to bring sustained economic development to all its citizens, including the indigenous and tribal communities, Mr. Mac Donald underscored. One of the requirements for granting a mining concession was that, before a concession was approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources, advice was sought from the District Commissioner and through him the indigenous and tribal communities needed to be consulted.

In preliminary concluding observations, Pastor Elias Murillo Martinez, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Suriname, said the Committee greatly appreciated the update in the oral presentations, in particular information on progress made with regard to payment of claims by the indigenous persons both with regard to the judgements of the Inter-American Court and as a result of the peace agreement. A growing concern was a lack of safeguards in the courts, as demonstrated by the tendency of Maroon and indigenous groups to apply to international courts to seek redress for their rights. At the core of many of these issues was the recognition of collective land rights for these communities. The Committee would recommend that Suriname create spaces for consultation with the indigenous and Maroon communities. It would also be important for the State to take a positive attitude to the international judgments related to those peoples. Moreover, it was still believed that the investigation of the events of 1986 (Moiwana case) could be taken still further. It had not been seen that a clear investigation had been undertaken and penalties imposed on those responsible. Further information would be appreciated in the next report on progress made on the implementation of the peace agreements of 1992.

Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, concern about the methodology applied for determining whether persons were indigenous; information on measures aimed at protecting and promoting the languages of the indigenous communities; how the current mining law ensured that the District Commissioner involved and consulted the indigenous communities concerned before granting concessions; clarification on racial categories used in the report, in particular Creoles, Kaukasisch and Mixed Race, and whether persons self-identified as such; and what was being done to address the health consequences for the indigenous persons of the mining concessions.

The delegation of Suriname also included Margo Waterval, a human rights Expert/Consultant and Jornell Vinkwold, Coordinator of the Bureau of Human Rights at the Ministry of Justice and Police.

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

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to take up the seventeenth to nineteenth periodic reports of Finland (CERD/C/FIN/19).

Report of Suriname

The population of Suriname is multi-ethnic and multi-religious. According to the combined eleventh and twelfth periodic reports of Suriname (CERD/C/SUR/12), the population by ethnic group in 2004 was as follows: Amerindians, 18,037; Maroons, 72,553; Creole, 87,202; Hindustani, 135,117; Javanese, 71,879; Chinese, 8,775; Kaukasisch, 2,899; Mixed, 61,524; Others, 2,264; Don’t know, 1,261; No answer, 31,318. At least 15 different languages are spoken. There are no special measures taken to preserve the native languages of the country’s indigenous and tribal people in education. The formal language is Dutch, which is the official language in schools. However, in the interior Sranan Tongo is commonly used as instruction language in Kindergarten, first and second grade. There are plans to conduct a study in the use of the mother tongue approach in the early years in primary schools.

The Council for the Development of the Interior, established on 1 May 1995 by the Ministry of Regional Affairs, is competent to be heard by the Government of Suriname concerning policy and/or policy initiatives and decisions, national and international agreements, legislative matters and all other issues, which can be of influence on the life and well-being of the people living in tribal communities. At the installation of the latest Council in 2003, a request was made by the Minister of Regional Affairs to look into the difficulties of land rights of the people living in tribal communities. The issue is so complex that the Council is still in the process of gathering information, by participating in workshops, attending presentations, studying literature, etc.

Presentation of Report

HENRY L. MAC DONALD, Permanent Representative of Suriname to the United Nations in New York, reiterated the unwavering support of Suriname to the rule of law, democracy and the promotion and protection of human rights, which it had demonstrated through the ratification of the majority of human rights instruments of the United Nations, as well as other regional organizations, such as the Organization of American States. Cognizant of the fact that becoming a party to a human rights treaty was just a first step, the Government had always taken its responsibility seriously when it regarded the concrete implementation of treaty obligations. It could not be overemphasized, however, that those requirements might present major challenges for small States, especially when it related to their limited human capacities and the availability of financial resources. To illustrate the Surinamese situation, the official language was Dutch, and correspondence presented by various Government authorities was in the official language. They then had to proceed with the Herculean task of translating the information into one of the six official languages of the United Nations; that undoubtedly created delays in fulfilling their reporting obligations under human rights treaties. The Government of Suriname, however, was determined to do everything in its power to improve communication channels, both internally and externally.

Suriname was a vibrant parliamentary democracy with constitutionally entrenched fundamental human rights and freedoms, Mr. Mac Donald observed. The Constitution completely guaranteed that "no one shall be discriminated against on grounds of birth, sex, race, language, religion, education, political opinion, economic position or any other status and that subsequently everyone had the right to freedom of religion and philosophy of life". Surinamese society was truly multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-linguistic and multi-religious. Noticeable was that all those ethnic groups with different cultural backgrounds and traditions were coexisting and cooperating peacefully with each other, and this was reflected in the political representation in the Administration.

Those who had spent some time in Suriname should be aware of how the commonly amicable relationship among ethnic groups and religions in Surinamese society contributed to religious freedom in the country, since most citizens, particularly those living in the capital, celebrated to varying degrees the religious holidays of other groups. Since 1989, the Inter-Religious Council in Suriname had been the venue for consultation and dialogue between the main religions in the country. That Council was composed of the principal representatives of the main religions of the land. Council members met at least twice each month to discuss planned ecumenical activities and their position on government policies, when necessary. It was noteworthy that in the past that institution had been instrumental in bringing solutions to major national political impasses, Mr. Mac Donald added.

Challenges still remained, however, and Suriname would do whatever was necessary to increase and strengthen mutual respect and understanding among people, because they were mindful that dialogue among peoples, cultures and religions was an effective remedy to prevent conflicts on the national, regional and international level, Mr. Mac Donald observed.

Turning to topics of particular importance to the Government, Mr. Mac Donald noted that, with regard to the issue of the acknowledgement by the Government of the rights of indigenous and tribal communities to possess, develop, control and use their communal lands, small but incremental steps had been undertaken to continue the honest and frank discussion, in close cooperation with target groups, in order to find a solution to an incredibly complex issue. It was also noteworthy that the State had signed a memorandum of understanding with the Amazon Conservation Team (ACT), a non-governmental organization (NGO), to help demark the territories of tribal people.

Since 2005, ACT-Suriname had assisted the indigenous groups in their struggle for rights to land and natural resources. At present, ACT-Suriname had conducted research on community relationships with land and the framework for land rights and had organized several capacity-building workshops with indigenous peoples, Maroons and Government representatives. In that way, various groups had been facilitated to discuss the possible format of, and process towards, the recognition of land rights in Suriname.

ACT-Suriname's experience dated back to the late 1990's, when the first written record of indigenous communities had been created for the Suriname-Brazil border region by the Trio Indians through a process called "participatory mapping". Together with the Government's Central Bureau for Aerial Mapping, and now with the Geographical Land Information System, approximately 40 indigenous partners had been trained to map over 50 million acres of Amazonian forest through GPS technology. With ACT-Suriname assistance, territorial maps had been made for most of South Suriname, comprising over 50 per cent of Suriname's land area.

The issue of authorization of concessions for minerals and the associated infrastructure projects and the possible harm that might cause to indigenous and tribal communities was also given due consideration by the Government against the background of its responsibility to bring sustained economic development to all its citizens, including the indigenous and tribal communities, Mr. Mac Donald observed.

In the report, they had elaborated a very complex procedure before a concession was granted by the Government. One of the requirements was that, before a concession was approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources, advice was sought from the District Commissioner and through him the indigenous and tribal communities needed to be consulted. The underlying principles of the land rights legal system of Suriname were: the domain principle; the principle that all natural resources belonged to the State; and the principle of separation of surface and subsurface rights. Articles of the Constitution of 1987 and the Mining Decree of 1986 embodied those principles and were codifications of pre-existing law. In that regard, rights to subsurface resources were not and had never been part of the Maroons and indigenous communities sui generis land rights, Mr. Mac Donald emphasized.

Ownership of minerals, subsurface and other natural resources pertaining to land had been retained by the State and any exception with respect to the traditional land rights of the Maroons and the indigenous communities would therefore be discriminatory, Mr. Mac Donald explained. Even if the Maroons and indigenous communities had retained those rights, they would have been limited to resources conventionally used for their subsistence and livelihood, as well as for their cultural and religious activities. That vision had been confirmed by the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of the Saramaka Los of 28 November 2007.

The Government undertook its responsibility seriously when it related to the implementation of decisions of judicial authorities. Mr. Mac Donald referred particularly to the two judgments rendered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights by which Suriname was ordered to take a number of definite actions as a remedy for violations that took place in the Moiwana Village and for the Saramaka People. Even though the Government would have wished to address the issue in its national constellation, it would by no means deny its citizens their rights to seek recourse at regional and international institutions. While the pace of implementation might not be completely satisfactory to all parties, the Government was making an earnest effort to implement those decisions.

Finally, Mr. Mac Donald evoked the recent global energy, food, financial and economic crises, noting that Governments were currently under tremendous pressure to safeguard that their constituents had access to quality education and affordable health care, as well as to guarantee food security and the overall improvement of their well-being. Undoubtedly, priorities would have to be set. That should not be misconstrued as an excuse for neglecting commitments to various international instruments. He merely wished to highlight that some Governments, including his own, were exerting extra efforts in guaranteeing sustained economic and social development for their people and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Oral Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts

PASTOR ELIAS MURILLO MARTINEZ, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of Suriname, observed that, despite the fact that Suriname was a party to the majority of international human rights treaties and had signed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it had not yet signed International Labour Organization Convention 169 on indigenous and tribal peoples.

Also, while the Convention had been used within the constitutional dispositions of the State, and the definition of racial discrimination in domestic legislation accorded with article 1 of the Convention, Suriname had not adopted legislation called for under article 4 of the Convention, requiring the prohibition against organizations that fomented racism, Mr. Murillo Martinez noted. In addition, Suriname had not made a declaration under article 14 of the Convention (recognizing the Committee's competence to receive complaints from individuals in Suriname who alleged violations under the Convention).

A particular concern had been that Suriname's report had not followed the Committee's guidelines, but incorporated wholesale the questions and answers of the different institutions responsible for different issues under the Convention, Mr. Murillo Martinez said.

With regard to education, Mr. Murillo Martinez regretted that too great a number of Maroons were illiterate, one of the biggest factors in the propagation of intergenerational poverty, which affected that population as well as indigenous peoples. In that regard, the Committee would appreciate information on the measures taken by the State to guarantee adequate access by Maroon and indigenous populations to education, as well as to improve the quality of education they received.

The Committee would also appreciate information on what steps were being taken to finalize studies with a view to adopting ILO Convention 169, which had been dragging on for 15 years now, Mr. Murillo Martinez underscored.

The Committee had serious concerns on Suriname's mining legislation, in particular whether royalties were paid to indigenous peoples for the exploitation of natural resources on their land and what was the exact legal regime of such lands?

The situation in which the indigenous and afro-descendants in Suriname found themselves, and in particular Maroons, was closely connected to racial discrimination, in particular with regard to the limited exercise of their political rights. Mr. Murillo Martinez asked for information about the level of participation of those groups in decision-making in the State, including in the legislative, executive and judicial arms, as well as at high levels in the National Forces.

Mr. Murillo Martinez said he would also like to hear information on the results of the National Action Plan to Combat Poverty on the indigenous communities and on the Maroons.

Mr. Murillo Martinez was disturbed by a growing trend for indigenous communities and afro-descendants in Suriname to bring their complaints to international forums to vindicate their rights, which demonstrated the inadequacy of the national mechanisms available. The Committee had found it necessary to recur to its urgent action procedure to address the situation of two ethnic groups in the country. Moreover, there had been two judgments handed down against Suriname for discriminating against indigenous communities by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and currently a new case was before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for admission. It would be useful for the Committee if the delegation could provide details of the recommendations in the sentences handed down in those cases and what steps had been taken to address them.

Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, disparities in the cost of education in indigenous areas and elsewhere; concern about the methodology applied for determining whether persons were indigenous, and why Suriname did not use self-identification; information on measures aimed at protecting and promoting the languages of the indigenous communities; how the current mining law actually ensured that the District Commissioner involved and consulted the indigenous communities concerned before granting concessions; and the situation of the draft law on the granting of concessions to indigenous lands, which spelled out the requirement for consulting the indigenous communities concerned.

Other questions included clarification on racial categories used in the report, in particular Creoles, Kaukasisch and Mixed Race, and whether persons self-identified as such; what was being done to address the health consequences for the indigenous persons of the mining concessions; and more information on reports of rapes or sexual assaults on young indigenous women in areas where mining concessions had been granted.

As a follow-on to the Rapporteur's observation that Surinamese individuals and groups were increasingly turning to international instances in racial discrimination cases, an Expert asked what steps the Government was taking to improve domestic mechanisms, in particular the courts. Another Expert further stressed the need to establish a local, reliable institution to address such complaints, given the huge increase in expense and time in seeking redress from international organs, such as the Inter-American Court.

Another concern voiced by Experts related to the finding in the Saramaka case by the Inter-American Court for Human Rights that indigenous and Maroon communities lacked legal status in Suriname and were therefore not eligible to receive communal titles on behalf of the community or other traditional collective entities that possessed land. What was Suriname doing to address that situation?

Response by Delegation to Oral Questions

Responding to questions raised by Experts, on the issue of the report's structure, the delegation agreed it had not followed the reporting guidelines. There were reasons for that. The lack of financial and human resources was largely responsible. They had finally managed to organize a seminar on human rights reporting, to build national capacity in that area, last year, but it had been extremely difficult.

Specifically, there had been a misunderstanding in the back and forth communications between the State and the Committee on the report, and it had been thought that it was not necessary to report according to the provisions of the Convention, but to respond to questions put. In future, the State would formulate its report according to the guidelines.

On the ratification of ILO Convention No. 169, the delegation said unfortunately there had been no substantial progress in that area since the submission of Suriname's initial report. The ratification and implementation of that particular convention depended on progress made in other ministries, since the respective issues were incredibly interconnected. Although various ministries were continuously working to improve the position of the indigenous and Maroon communities in Suriname, the actual ratification of ILO Convention No. 169 could not yet be carried out.

As for the status of the draft Mining Act, the current version of the draft Mining Act was still with the Commission of Reporters of the National Assembly. Moreover, the draft dated back to 2004, the delegation pointed out, and needed to be updated to the current situation.

As to the provisions of the mining act of 1986, currently in force, the delegation said that, before the President of Suriname or the Minister of Natural Resources granted a mining right, even though it was regulated in the mining act of 1986, over the years it had become an administrative practice that the advice of the District Commission of the specific district was sought. What had happened in the past was that the District Commission sought the consent of the Captain or head of the village commonly without the krutu (or village meeting).

As a case in point, the delegation highlighted that of Chong Heng Tai, a multinational which had intended to build a palm oil production site in Patamakka. The so-called Patamakka deal had first been put on hold and later had been cancelled since the local people opposed the deal. That illustrated that the process of getting prior consent of the local community was currently being exercised by the Government.

Turning to one of the Committee's core concerns, collective land rights of the indigenous areas, the delegation said that Suriname was working on a structure to recognize collective land rights of the indigenous people and the Maroons. It was aware that its neighbours in South America had legislation in this area. It should be understood, however, that in Suriname the problem was more complex, as these land rights were for both the Maroons and indigenous communities, some of whom were living in the same areas. Suriname also had to keep in mind the claims of indigenous groups to whole areas where they had once lived according to their nomadic culture. The process of establishing collective land rights was thus a long one.

In that connection, the Presidential Land Rights Commission had presented its final report in July 2008 to the President and the Council of Ministers, and it was currently being analysed and studied, the delegation said. The Government intended to establish a comprehensive and ambitious regional and area mapping plan of the land use area in order to bring permanent order to the current situation.

In order to utilize the potential of the forest sustainably, the Government had decided to establish a Strategic Action Plan to replace the current national forest policy, the delegation continued. A new draft law had been established that would create the Forest and Nature Conservation Authority and, on 1 October 2008, the Surinamese President had stressed "the concern regarding the interior will this year be concentrated on the issue of the tribal law of all of those who live in the tribal community of our country, the so-called land rights issue. This will take place in relation to the execution of the project 'Support for the Sustainable Development Planning of the Interior'".

As to the implementation of judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the delegation said that the State had almost finished implementing the Moiwana judgment. Here it should be mentioned that the State had not investigated the events themselves and the judgment related only to the continuing offence. In implementing the judgment, the Government had held an information meeting with the survivors to inform them about the status of implementation of the judgment. Apologies were offered on 15 July 2006 by the President to the Maroon communitiy, and especially the survivors of the Nju Djuka community. On 31 January 2008, a monument erected in honour of the memory of the victims had been officially unveiled by the President of Suriname. In March 2008, the judicial and police authorities concluded their investigation and identified the location of the remains of the victims. The Government had allocated financial resources towards the Foundation for the Development of Moiwana. Three houses had already been built. All of the registered bereaved family and relatives (a total of 130 people) of the victims had been financially compensated.

With regard to the judgment rendered by the Inter-American Court on the case of the Saramaka People vs. Suriname, in May 2008 the Saramaka people held a meeting in the village to discuss the judgment, at which the Minister of Regional Development and the Minister of Physical Planning, Land and Forest Management had been present. A national commission for implementation of the judgment had been established in December 2008 and the Council of Ministers approved financial resources for that purpose. Although there had been some delay in the implementation of the judgment, the Government would endeavour to accelerate that process. The Implementation Commission had held its first meeting in February 2009, in cooperation with organizations representing the Saramaka people and would exert all efforts to give effect to their mandate.

At this moment there was the case of the Kalinas and Lokono at the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. According to the procedure, the Commission had put themselves at the disposal of parties to reach a friendly settlement, but the Kalinas and Lokonos were not interested. They want the Commission to take the case to court. That was not strange, since the case was almost identical with that of the Saramaka Los. The main complaint was the violation of collective land rights.

With regard to race characterizations and whether, for example, Maroons accepted that term themselves, the delegation noted that Maroons did not agree on how they wanted to be called. Some insisted on being called Maroon, whereas others wanted to be called bush Negroes.

The delegation explained the complex situation in Suriname, where no one was purely anything. Creole meant the Negroes living in the city and some people also called themselves Creole to distinguish themselves from the bush Negroes. Mixed people were those who were a mixture of two or more races, but often people had a choice of whether they called themselves for example Creole or mixed race. The Kaukasich were the Europeans or whites.

As to whether the Constitutional Court had been established, the delegation reported that unfortunately that had not been done thus far. Draft legislation was currently with the Parliament. It was worth mentioning that the judiciary had the full competence to rule in occasions when domestic legislation was incompatible with the Constitution or human rights provisions of any Convention to which the State was a party, and had done so, notably with regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Suriname would endeavour to accelerate the process of the establishment of the Constitutional Court.

Regarding judicial redress for rights, according to the Civil Code every citizen could apply to the judiciary, which provided its citizens with an adequate legal recourse against alleged infringements of land rights by any person, including the State. The judiciary of Suriname was fully equipped and competent to handle cases that concerned every situation in its territory. However, for some years now the availability of a sufficient number of judges had been problematic. That was why in 2004 the Government had started a course to train lawyers to become judges, and the Ministry of Justice was momentarily in the midst of selecting a new group of applicants for a new training session that would most likely start this year. A Prosecutors training programme was also in progress.

Cases that concerned land rights were never brought to the judiciary of Suriname to be judged. The groups preferred the international bodies because they were of the opinion that their cases would be judged more objectively in those forums.

On the malaria problem in the hinterland and the HIV/AIDS situation, the delegation said that the successful implementation of the "Roll Back Malaria Programme" of the Ministry of Health resulted in the reduction of malaria incidence and the reduction of malaria mortality to zero in 2006, 2007 and 2008. That meant the Millennium Development Goal with respect to malaria had already been reached in Suriname.

The mortality numbers of HIV/AIDS were nowadays portraying a downward trend as were hospitalisations. The Government therefore continued to ensure that HIV/AIDS tests and medications were at hand and when necessary, free of charge. AIDS was no longer the number one death cause in the age category 24 to 49 years. However, the AIDS mortality rate remained, as in many Caribbean countries, at an exceptionally high level. It was also fair to admit that the small success achieved had not been experienced countrywide and that the problem was still highly relevant in the interior. Measures were currently being implemented towards the expansion of the prevention of mother-to-child transmission programme and intensified programmes were focused on prevention, such as free testing and the increased availability of condoms, not only in the urban areas but also in the interior where there were mining activities. Also, this year the Government would start with the reconstruction of the regional hospital in Albina in the district of Marowijne and a brand new hospital would be built at Atjoni in the Sipaliwini District.

On education, the Government had decided to renovate a large majority of its educational facilities and to build at least 80 new classrooms in the country. That would also be the case in the interior, where the Government would continue to renovate educational facilities and houses for school staff. Two new student housing facilities – one at Stoelmans Island and the other at Atjoni – would be inaugurated later this year. Just recently, a special programme had also been implemented to train Maroon and indigenous teachers, to fill the high need for teachers in the interior.

In response to queries about whether there were Maroons or indigenous persons in the administration in Suriname, the delegation confirmed that there were several high-ranking members of the those communities who were currently serving as Ministers, Permanent Secretaries, Ambassadors, Consul Generals or policy advisers. Noticeable also were a good number of those groups who were Members of Parliament and Members of the State Council.

Further Oral Questions Posed by Experts

In a second round of questions, Experts asked a number of questions, including Suriname's position with regard to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People; what the relation was between the Maroons and the indigenous peoples; and what were the specific financial allocations in the two judgments discussed – i.e. how much money had been allocated for the implementation of the Saramaka judgment; and how much had been given to the 130 Moiwana families, including the building of the three new houses.

Replies by the Delegation

Responding to those questions and others, the delegation said that Suriname had voted in favour of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. The only outstanding questions for Suriname had been the question of separation of surface and subsurface land rights and the issue of whether the Maroons were indigenous peoples. But those issues had been resolved.

The delegation said that the relations between the Maroons and the indigenous were quite relaxed. Those two peoples had lived together amicably for decades in the interior. There had been one incident, in the context of their internal war, when the Dutch Administration had tried to turn an Amerindian group against the mostly Maroon rebels, but that had ended after a couple of years.

As for the Saramaka Los judgment, as set out in the judgment some $310,000 had been set aside for the foundation and other payments.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

In preliminary concluding observations, PASTOR ELIAS MURILLO MARTINEZ, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Suriname, said the Committee greatly appreciated the positive and determined attitude of the delegation in the presentation of its report and its self-critical spirit.

Mr. Murillo Martinez had greatly appreciated, in particular, an update on progress made in the oral presentations today and yesterday, in particular the decree of 2003, introducing the revised law on matrimony. Also appreciated was information on new progress made with regard to payment of claims by the indigenous persons both with regard to the judgements of the Inter-American Court and as a result of the peace agreement.

The Committee recognized the importance of natural resources to the Surinamese economy, and an analysis of property and use rights was particularly important in that context. At the core of indigenous and Maroon communities were their ancestral lands, although Mr. Murillo Martinez acknowledged that, in most bodies of legislation, mineral rights tended to lie with the State.

It was also a growing concern for indigenous and Maroon groups with respect to a lack of safeguards in the courts, Mr. Murillo Martinez felt. That was demonstrated by the tendency of those groups to apply to international courts to seek redress for their rights.

The Committee also noted that the application of ILO Convention No. 169 required the recognition of indigenous land rights and the use of appropriate consultation procedures. Those were not incompatible with the sovereignty of States. It had been seen that the current abuse of certain land rights limited possibilities for resolution of current conflicts. At the core of many of these issues was the recognition of collective land rights for these communities, Mr. Murillo Martinez underscored. In that connection, the Committee would recommend that Suriname create spaces for consultation with the indigenous and Maroon communities. It would also be important for the State to take a positive attitude to the international judgments related to those peoples, specifically the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Moreover, it was still believed that the investigation of the events of 1986 (Moiwana case) could be taken still further. It had not been seen that a clear investigation had been undertaken and penalties imposed on those responsible. It was very important that Suriname take the necessary measures in view of those decisions in full, Mr. Murillo Martinez said.

Finally, Mr. Murillo Martinez observed that, while the Committee understood that progress was being made in the establishment of a Constitutional Court and in the process of bringing mining legislation into line with international requirements, it could not stress enough the need to make head way to consolidate peace. In that context, further information would be appreciated in the next report on progress made on the implementation of the peace agreements of 1992.

Situation in Gambia

The Committee then took up the situation of Gambia, in the absence of a report, under its review procedure for countries whose reports are extremely overdue.

Introducing the situation in Gambia, NOURREDINE AMIR, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the situation in Gambia, noted that, Gambia had not submitted a report for 30 years. Gambia submitted their first report in 1980, and since then, the Committee had met three times to discuss the situation without a report, starting in 2001. Attempts to enter into contact with Gambia, including letters sent, had not been replied to. At the Committee's seventy-second meeting, in February 2008, it had been decided to send a letter to Gambia with a list of issues to be responded to by 30 September 2008. They had seen no reaction from Gambia.

Mr. Amir wondered then what that this fourth review procedure would mean, given a lack of reaction from the Gambian Government for 30 years. Would this provoke a reaction from the Gambian Government? Looking at a draft of concluding observations on the situation in Gambia, which was before the Committee for consideration, the contents were very similar to those discussed in previous reviews. They had had no effect.

Mr. Amir would suggest another approach. Were they right now to review the economic, social and political situation of Gambia, on the basis of a country presentation before the Committee (in the absence of a core report), they would see that Gambia had a small population, with English as its official language and three major vernaculars. They would see that the country had held elections in January 2007. But what good would this review do?

What Mr. Amir suggested was the drafting of a warning letter by the Committee to be signed by the Chairperson on the international obligation of Gambia to comply with its international obligations. Did Gambia still consider itself bound by the Convention? He felt that it would not do any harm to urge the Government to comply with its obligations.

In the ensuing discussion, issues considered by Experts were the fact that Gambia had not even responded to the many letters sent to it to explain that it did not have the capacity to draft the report; the possibility of making a country visit; whether the Committee had the competence to take a judgment against a State that was not fulfilling its obligations, or if that was the prerogative of States parties; whether they could include the issue of Gambia and similar States on the agenda of the next meeting of States parties to the Convention; and whether there was any international law on the issue of what happened to States parties to a treaty who violated that treaty over a long period of time.


It was decided that the Committee would adopt concluding observations on the situation in Gambia at this session, as well as draw up a warning letter to Gambia recalling its obligations under the Convention to be signed by the Committee Chairperson and sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to the Embassy of Gambia in Paris (which covers Geneva), to the Permanent Mission of Gambia in New York and to the United Nations Development Programme.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CRD09009E