Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination considers the report of Mongolia

Committee on the Elimination 
of Racial Discrimination

3 December 2015

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning concluded its consideration of the combined nineteenth to twenty-second periodic report of Mongolia on its implementation of the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Presenting the report, Jigmiddash Bayartsetseg, State Secretary at the Ministry of Justice, stated that the Constitution of Mongolia had been written based on the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The current comprehensive protection from discrimination would be further complemented by the new Criminal Code, which would criminalize acts of various forms of discrimination and set a wide range of punishments.  Minority groups were proportionately represented in every part of public life, and efforts had been made to increase the presence of minorities in the police force.  Equality and human rights to all non-citizens were ensured to the extent recognized under international law.  There were no cases of asylum seekers and refugees coming to the country.  Cases relating to violence based on racial discrimination composed some seven per cent of total cases where victims were foreigners.  Both individuals and groups inciting racial discrimination and violence were prosecuted.

In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts asked about the absence of comprehensive legislation against racial discrimination, and also wondered about the absence of any complaints on racial discrimination, which did not necessarily mean that such cases did not occur.  Questions were raised about the xenophobic sentiment of certain groups, violence against foreigners, and the established quotas for the maximum number of foreigners allowed in the country.  The treatment of ethnic minorities, including Kazakhs and Tsaatans, was discussed at length, and the Experts also wanted to know about the numbers of Russian and Chinese nationals in Mongolia.  Other questions raised included reported restrictions on Mongolian citizens to travel abroad and foreign citizens to leave Mongolia, the relation between domestic laws and the Convention, stateless persons, bilingual education and the doctrine of racial purity.

Yong’an Huan, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Mongolia, concluded by saying that the Committee had positively assessed the periodic report and raised many questions from various angles.  The dialogue was frank, honest, constructive and highly efficient, which was appreciated.

Ms. Bayartsetseg, in closing remarks, said that Mongolia would consider further legislative reforms to ensure more compliance with the Convention.  The role of various stakeholders in promoting and protecting human rights was appreciated.  The State party would continue to make efforts to ensure human rights for everyone.

The delegation of Mongolia included representatives of the Ministry of Justice and the Permanent Mission of Mongolia to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. this afternoon, to start its consideration of the combined fourth to sixth periodic report of Turkey (CERD/C/TUR/4-6).

Report

The combined nineteenth to twenty-second periodic report of Mongolia can be read here: CERD/C/MNG/19-22.

Presentation of the Report

JIGMIDDASH BAYARTSETSEG, State Secretary at the Ministry of Justice of Mongolia, said that Mongolia had been continuously striving to promote the rule of law, democracy and human rights, both internationally and nationally, and to embrace diversity and multiculturalism.  Mongolia had recently chaired the Community of Democracies and in October 2014, Mongolia had been elected as a member of the Human Rights Council.

The Constitution of Mongolia had been written based on the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  It contained provisions against discrimination, which were also present in the Civil Code, Criminal Code, Law on Labour and others.  The main principle of the undergoing legal reforms was to ensure greater compliance of national legislation with human rights commitments and obligations taken before the international community.  The current comprehensive protection from discrimination would be further complemented by the new Criminal Code, which would criminalize acts of various forms of discrimination and set a wide range of punishments.  The Law on Social Insurance had also been revised, so that the insurance contributions of Tsaatan indigenous people herding reindeer would be covered by the State. 

Ms. Bayartsetseg said that Mongolia had well established remedy mechanisms, such as the Constitutional Court, the National Human Rights Commission and the judiciary.  The National Human Rights Commission, compliant with the Paris Principles, conducted regular inquiries in rural areas for any possible human rights violations and presented its recommendations to the Parliament on how laws could be improved.  As of 2015, no complaints in relation to racial discrimination had been made to those institutions.  According to the 2010 census, the Kazakh minority represented 3.86 per cent of the population, while the Tsaatan people amounted to only 0.01 per cent.  In recent years, the State had allocated significant funds to building specific infrastructure such as schools and libraries in remote and rural areas in order to minimize the disparities.  Bilingual schools received financing about 40 per cent higher than other schools.  Education materials had been translated into the Kazakh language.

Minority groups were proportionately represented in every part of public life; they had two members in the 76-member Parliament.  Efforts had been undertaken to increase the number of minority groups in the police force, where their presence had now reached approximately 10 per cent.  Mongolia was providing scholarships to each Tsaatan willing to continue in higher education.  Affirmative actions were applied to promote the employment of the Tsaatans, who also received monthly State subsidies.  While the Government was in charge of issuing mining licenses, it required full consent and approval of the local community at provincial and sub-provincial levels.  Restrictions on hunting of certain types of animals were not targeted towards the indigenous peoples, but many species traditionally haunted by the Tsaatans were now at the edge of extinction. 

Annually, Mongolia received half a million foreign visitors, while the number of foreign residents had increased by 14 per cent over the last three years.  Equality and human rights to all non-citizens were ensured to the extent recognized under international law.  There were no cases of asylum seekers and refugees coming to the country.  The Law on legal status of foreign citizens, nonetheless, included provisions on providing refuge and granting asylum.  Cases relating to violence based on racial discrimination composed some seven per cent of total cases where victims were foreigners.  Both individuals and groups inciting racial discrimination and violence were prosecuted.

In conclusion, Ms. Bayartsetseg informed that the Government had adopted a resolution establishing regulations and specifying duties and responsibilities of each governmental agency in the preparation and submission of national reports to international human rights mechanisms.  The Government collaborated with civil society organizations through their inclusion in advisory councils and involving them in discussions on periodic reports.

Questions by Experts

HUANG YONG’AN, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Mongolia, said that the population of the country was mostly concentrated in the capital city of Ulaanbaatar and other provincial capitals.  Ethnic Mongols accounted for an overwhelming majority of the population.

Mongolia had acceded to main international human rights treaties and maintained good cooperation with the treaty bodies.  Great efforts had been made in the field of promoting and protecting human rights, including amending the existing laws and promoting new ones.

Could the delegation present details on the National Programme to Raise the Living Standards of Citizens of Tsaatan Minority Group in 2007?  The State party was commended for attaching great importance to the life of its minority ethnic groups.

It seemed that the concept of the Convention had been reflected into the State policy through the Constitution, and that the State party had no intention to establish specific legislation on racial discrimination.  Mongolia was encouraged to consider enacting a comprehensive legislation addressing racial discrimination in accordance with the principles of the Convention.

The ethnic groups, which numbered about 300,000, lived mostly peacefully and harmoniously in the western provinces.  What did the Government do to ensure the rights and interests of the ethnic groups in processes of privatization carried out by the State party?

The underrepresentation of the minorities and women in the public services and Parliament was a matter of concern, said Mr. Huang.  The ratio of ethnic minorities and women in legislative bodies at all levels in Mongolia ought to be raised.

Absence of complaints and legal actions by victims of racial discrimination might be mainly an indication of the absence of relevant specific legislation, or of a lack of awareness of the availability of legal remedies, or of insufficient will on the part of the authorities to prosecute.  The Government should provide the citizens with legal tools and create a safe social environment to enjoy their lawful rights, including the right to complain.

Since Mongolia had opened its border to the outside world and transited to a market economy in the 1990s, many foreigners had entered the country.  While foreign investments had contributed to economic development, there had also been a trend of xenophobic sentiment arising among some Mongolians.  Some groups publicly clamoured to expel and kill some foreigners, including those from China.  While the State party had taken some actions, it was still requested to take more and effective measures, including actively combatting racist speech.  Narrow nationalism and extremism were bound to harm the country’s political stability, said the Expert.

Another Expert asked about the difference between “minorities” and “ethnic groups”, both of which were referred to in the State party’s report.

How could the limiting of the right to travel abroad contribute to the maintenance of public order?  Did one need to obtain an exit visa before being able to leave Mongolia?

How did the State party view the fact that some ethnic Kazakhs from Mongolia would apply for Kazakh citizenship?  Were they moving to Kazakhstan for economic reasons?

The President exercised the right with regard to granting and withdrawing Mongolian citizenship, which seemed to be in contradiction with the provision that Mongolian citizens could not be deprived of their nationality.  Could the delegation clarify?

The National Human Rights Commission was reportedly not provided with sufficient funding, which was why it had had to seek external sources of funding. 

The Commission had raised concerns that the judiciary was not applying international human rights treaties when rendering decisions.  The lack of the transparency and the dearth of sufficient human and financial resources in the judiciary were all matters of concern.

Information was sought on the freedom of the media to operate without interference.

Was Mongolia planning to ratify the Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol?  What difficulties had hindered such ratification?  Were refugees and asylum seekers considered illegal immigrants and were they eligible to receive governmental support, asked an Expert?

Why had there been no chance for the National Human Rights Commission to make its presentation, in addition to the presentation by the delegation?

It was possible that people did not dare to make complaints.  What were the punishments for racial discrimination and racially-motivated violence?

There were groups in Mongolia demonstrating clear hatred towards foreigners; they believed in a conspiracy against Mongolia and were strictly opposed to intermarriage.

An Expert said that there were no references in the report to Russian or Chinese communities.  Were there no such groups in Mongolia?

What was the relation between domestic laws and the Convention?  Once ratified, was the Convention immediately in effect in Mongolia?  Did it prevail over national legislation?

A question was asked on how racist propaganda was defined in the Mongolian legislation. 

The Expert wanted to know if the privileges accorded to the Kazakh minority were the result of the bilateral agreement with Kazakhstan, and if other minority groups were then neglected.

How did the State party ensure that the number of foreign citizens residing in Mongolia for private purposes might not exceed three per cent of total citizens of Mongolia and among them nationals of one country might be up to one percent?  How were those quotas imposed in practice?

Was that principle not discriminatory by nature, asked another Expert?  What if there was a high influx of people fleeing persecution – would Mongolia still stick to the prescribed percentage?  Some provisions appeared to be rather xenophobic.

Had there been cases when a person had invoked the Convention in a court of law, and was the Convention translated to Mongolian?  Were judges trained in that regard?

In Mongolia, all persons had the possibility to prepare their legal defence themselves, and legal aid was provided at all stages of the process.  Was that provision guaranteed?

What did the Law on Government entail, asked an Expert.  Based on that law, the Minister of Justice could question any administrative decision of binding nature, but more details were needed.  Was the State central administrative body in charge of legal affairs capable of revoking decisions?  Did it replace the Constitutional Court in some regards?

A question was asked about the existence and use of languages other than Mongol.

No country should prohibit its citizens from residing abroad in order to ensure its security, stressed an Expert. 

Another Expert inquired whether Mongolia was a secular country or was Buddhism an official religion?

An Expert asked whether Mongolia planned to ratify the Declaration on Indigenous Peoples.  He wanted to know more about prohibitions on hunting of certain animal species.

Was there any population of African descent in Mongolia?

An update was asked on news reports on alleged exploitation of workers from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.   What was the role of the specialized agency on labour inspections?

Mongolia’s economic growth seemed not to be benefiting the poor in the country, said an Expert.  What was being done to address such de facto structural discrimination? How was the Government collecting data?

The Government said that only 16 stateless persons were living in Mongolia, while some others claimed that those numbers were in the tens of thousands – could a clarification be provided?  What was the State party planning to do to address that challenge?

Replies by the Delegation

The delegation said it understood the concerns of the Committee over the absence of specific anti-discrimination legislation.  Nonetheless, the existing legislation provided comprehensive protection against discrimination.  Anti-discrimination clauses were also included in different sectorial laws, such as the Labour Law and the Education Law.

As of 2015, there were 11 female Members of Parliament, out of the total of 76.  Three Ministers, out of 15, were women.  A quota had been introduced to the election law, so that 30 per cent of all candidates should be female.  An increase in the number of female representatives had been seen in local municipal councils.  The majority of judges in Mongolia were women.  The new Law on Gender prescribed that 30 per cent of public servants at all levels should be women.

Regarding the lack of complaints, the delegation agreed that no complaints did not mean that there were no problems.  Relevant State institutions provided extensive training and awareness-raising activities on submitting complaints and remedy mechanisms.  The number of complaints on various violations of human rights was increasing every year, but there had, thus far, been no complaints on racial discrimination issues.  Judges had the knowledge and the skills to handle cases on human rights, especially on discrimination.

In the province where mostly ethnic Kazakhs lived, the majority of judges were Kazakh.  It was believed that local people thus did not feel afraid to lodge complaints to the police, which they could do in their own language.

Ultra-nationalist extremism was a matter of great concern to the Government, which was doing its best to prevent and prosecute such cases.  Eight individuals had been charged for racial crimes against foreigners and were currently under investigation.  An amended Penal Code, which would be approved shortly, included a specific crime based on discrimination.  The extremist group Dayar Mongol was now banned.

Mongolia was historically a homogenous country; Kazakhs and Tsaatans were singled out because of their separate languages.  A number of Russian and Chinese dissidents lived in Mongolia, 643 and 1,129 respectively.

Regarding travel abroad, the delegation said that the citizens enjoyed the right of freedom of movement within the country and abroad.  The right to travel abroad could be limited only by law in order to protect national security.  So far, there had been no cases of limitations to travel abroad because of national security or public order.   There were also no restrictions on Mongolian citizens returning to Mongolia.

Withdrawal or restoring of citizenship on an arbitrary basis was prohibited; it could be done only by a voluntary request.  The President would receive such requests and issue a formal proceeding.

Between 1994 and 2015, more than 56,000 ethnic Kazakhs had received the citizenship of Kazakhstan; slightly over 1,000 had restored their Mongolian citizenship.  There was no hindrance for those who wanted to have their citizenship restored. 

The National Human Rights Commission was an independent body, whose members were appointed by the Mongolian Parliament.  Budget cuts had been applied in recent years, due to the financial situation, and those cuts had affected all State bodies across the board.  In that regard, the National Human Rights Commission was not an exception.  The State was working with international partners to ensure that the Commission’s activities continued unabated.  The Commission was free to participate in dialogues with the treaty bodies.
Judges should apply and use all international conventions ratified by Mongolia, as they were part of the legal system.  A recent example included the use of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by a judge, based on which the defendant had been acquitted. 

A comprehensive judicial reform had been underway for the past three years, leading to a set of laws reinforcing the independence of judges.  Their salaries had been raised, and accountability and transparency mechanisms had been introduced, all with the view of combatting corruption in the judiciary.  The Law on Transparency prescribed that all State institutions should post their financial transactions online on a daily basis.

There were numerous media outlets in Mongolia; there were, for example, more than 90 TV channels and 4,000 magazines, which was quite a high number for a population of three million.  The defamation and libel clause had been removed from the amended Penal Code.

There was an administrative procedure through which foreigners needed to inform the State that they were leaving.  The authorities would need to check whether the departing person had committed any crime or owed taxes; it was an administrative procedure and not a visa as such. 

Mongolia acknowledged the importance of the Refugee Convention and was studying the possibility to ratify it.

The delegation said that, while freedoms of expression and association were protected, organizations inciting racial hatred, violence and crime were prohibited through the legal framework. 

According to the Law on Foreign Status, percentages were set to serve as a ceiling on the number of foreigners living in Mongolia.  With the total number of Mongolians now exceeding three million, that ceiling for foreigners – currently at 90,000 – was also increasing.  The provision on the ceiling part of the State policy on immigration could be understood in the terms of Mongolia’s history, vast land size and small population.  Mongolia believed that the provision did not contradict the Convention and amount to xenophobia.

The National Human Rights Commission, as an independent institution, had a broad mandate, including receiving complaints, while the National Council was a State policy and inter-agency coordination mechanism.  The Council ensured proper application of laws within the country.

Free legal aid and interpretation were guaranteed by the Constitution and the Law on Courts.  Courts had allocated budgets to hire translators and interpreters when needed.

The Ministry of Justice served as the central judicial administrative body and, as such, it reviewed all acts, including Governmental and Ministerial decrees, to ensure that they were in line with the Constitution and the existing acts and treaties.  If a contradiction was found, the Ministry had the mandate to invalidate those acts.  After ratification of international treaties, Parliament would adopt a law on their ratification, and no discrepancy with domestic law was allowed.

The delegation responded that Mongolia was a secular country, where the State and religion were separate.  Religious institutions operated separately, without any intrusion by the Government.

On indigenous peoples, it was explained that the Tsaatan people had their language and culture protected.  Tsaatans had been living in Mongolia for thousands of years.  Ratification of International Labour Organization Convention 169 was being studied. 

There was only one mining license issued for the region in which the Tsaatans lived, and only four per cent of all licenses were issued in the region where the ethnic Kazakhs lived. Decisions had been made to limit hunting of certain wild species throughout the country, which were about to be extinct. 

On foreign workers being allegedly exploited in Mongolia, the delegation said that labour exploitation ought to be treated as human trafficking.  The Government was thus putting a great emphasis on that issue and was extensively working with the monitoring agencies to detect such practices across the country.  Several cases had been detected and were currently being investigated for labour exploitation.

Follow-up Questions

The Committee would be interested in seeing the draft of the amended Penal Code, which was about to be adopted.

The legislation in Mongolia reportedly could prohibit foreigners from leaving the country over commercial disputes as well, for which a clarification was sought.

What special measures were being taken to tackle the structural discrimination?

The Expert also wanted to know about the high dropout rates for Kazakh children and the education for Tuvan minority children.

Another Expert asked for a clarification of the term “propaganda” in the legislation, which might need to be deleted or replaced with terms found in the Convention.

A question was asked about the organization and work of the Institute of Education.

An Expert reiterated that the participation of the Human Rights Commission in the dialogue would have been in the interest of the State party.  Was its absence due to the lack of funds?  How about the engagement of non-governmental organizations?

Could more information be given on the Commission’s work with regard to racial discrimination and what was being done to provide it with further resources?

Erroneous doctrines of racial purity ought to be discarded, stressed the Expert.

A question was asked about the position of minority women.

Given the rapid urbanization, how could social consensus and coherence between urban and rural areas be forged, so that all sectors of the population benefited from the growth?  What was being done to reduce the “pockets of poverty” in the country?

The Expert asked whether Mongolia had any plans to revise its definition of racial discrimination.

Replies by the Delegation

The State party would provide the adopted version of the Penal Code, once translated.

Corruption and doing business indicators in Mongolia had been constantly improving, which could at least partly be due to the Government policies against corruption.  Cases of foreigners not being allowed to leave the country over commercial disputes were possible, but only with the approval of a prosecutor.  Procedures to further ease foreign investments and movement of foreigners were being currently prepared.

The delegation believed that structural discrimination as such did not exist in the country, especially when it came to the enjoyment of economic and social rights.  The poverty rate in the province with the majority of Kazakhs stood at 26 per cent, which was comparable to the country-wide average.  More data on the enjoyment of economic and social rights would be included in subsequent reports, assured the delegation.

School dropouts were a concern not only for Kazakhs, but for children of the herders. The rate was also within the range of other provinces.

The delegation said that the term “propaganda” might be the result of wrong translation; it should rather be translated as “incitement”.

The Institute of Education was mandated to prepare school curricula and train teachers.  Teaching materials and methods were being currently revised, including those in Kazakh.

It was indeed regrettable that the National Human Rights Commission was not present in Geneva today.  The Commission had a special segment in its budget for such occasions, and it was its prerogative to decide which treaty body sessions it would attend.  All State bodies had been affected by the current austerity policies, which were necessary due to the economic crisis.  The Government regularly consulted with the Commission on a wide array of issues.

The Commission was very active on a broad range of issues, including discrimination.  In one of its recent reports, it covered the issue of minorities.  An extensive public awareness campaign had been organized among the minority groups so that they knew about their right to lodge complaints.

The principle of racial superiority was not promoted in the country, but, on the contrary, it was discouraged in line with the Constitution and the country’s legal framework. 

Disaggregated data on minority women existed, said the delegation.  For example, in the region with the Kazakh majority, most judges were Kazakh women.

There were 16,000 registered non-governmental organizations, which operated independently and without State intrusion. 

In recent years, Mongolia had enjoyed an economic boom and prosperity, with a double-digit economic growth, mostly thanks to the extractive industry.  Because of the commodity price decline, the economy was now in crisis.  Particular attention was being paid to distant provinces so that they could reduce their poverty rates; portions of proceeds from mining went to local communities, which could decide how best to use it for their welfare.

The delegation informed that Mongolia’s current disparity index stood at 36.2.  The nation-wide poverty rate was currently at about 21 per cent, slightly lower than some years earlier.  Efforts were underway to eradicate extreme poverty in remote areas and to decrease the dependence on the extracting industry.

Children from families who moved from rural to urban areas could receive free health care, as was the case throughout the country.  Special attention was paid to the urbanization phenomenon: a regional devolvement policy was in place.  

Concluding Remarks

YONG’AN HUAN, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Mongolia, said that the Committee had positively assessed the periodic report and raised many questions from various angles.  The dialogue was frank, honest, constructive and highly efficient, which was appreciated.  The discussions were mostly focused on the legislation on racial discrimination, representation of women and minorities in public services, freedom of movement, the National Human Rights Commission, xenophobia and statelessness.

JIGMIDDASH BAYARTSETSEG, State Secretary at the Ministry of Justice of Mongolia, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to engage in the interactive dialogue on Mongolia’s efforts to eliminate racial discrimination in the country.  Mongolia would consider further legislative reforms to ensure more compliance with the Convention.  The role of various stakeholders in promoting and protecting human rights was appreciated.  The State party would continue to put all of its efforts to ensure human rights for everyone living in Mongolia.

 __________

For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr