Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination considers report of Argentina

Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination 

23 November 2016

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination completed this morning its consideration of the combined twenty-first to twenty-third periodic report of Argentina on the steps taken to implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Presenting the report, Claudio Avruj, Secretary for Human Rights and Cultural Pluralism of the Nation, stated that the organic structure of the national public administration had been modified in December 2015, changing, inter alia, the name of the Human Rights Secretariat to the Secretariat of Human Rights and Cultural Pluralism.  The Secretariat drafted and promoted policies on cultural pluralism, ethnic, religious and sexual orientation, and gender diversity.  November 8 had been proclaimed the National Day for Afro-Argentines, with the view of promoting their culture.  The National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism worked on combatting all those scourges, in cooperation with civil society and other stakeholders.  The National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism could receive complaints and provide guidance to concerned citizens; it also had an important role in promoting its agenda through audio-visual materials, brochures and educational pamphlets.  In 2016, the authorities had started to design the National Human Rights Plan 2017-2020.  

In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts praised numerous legislative achievements that Argentina had made in recent years, but wanted to know more about the implementation of those norms in practice.  They inquired about the status of Afro-Argentine and indigenous communities, in particular on their access to justice, education, health care and their overall visibility in society at large.  The issues of land ownership, prior consultation and forced evictions with indigenous communities were also discussed.  Committee Experts asked questions about the treatment of migrants and inquired about the existence of a migrant detention centre.  Particular attention was paid to the issue of the implementation of international treaties, including the Convention, at federal, provincial and local levels.  The Committee asked for further details and desegregated statistics on a number of questions, particularly related to the status of minority communities. 

In his closing remarks, Pastor Elias Murillo Martinez, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Argentina, stated that the dialogue was very educational in numerous aspects.  Laws related to quotas of minorities could be reconsidered by the State party.  There was no doubt that Argentina understood the value added of what migrants could bring to the country, but there was room for improvement.

Mr. Avruj, in concluding remarks, said that the wealth of information and questions by the Committee would significantly help the State party.  Answers which could not be provided now would be provided in writing shortly, including on the migrant detention centre.

The delegation of Argentina included representatives of the Secretariat for Human Rights and Cultural Pluralism of the Nation, the National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism, the General Directorate for Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, and the Permanent Mission of Argentina to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will next meet in public in Room XX of the Palais des Nations at 3 p.m. today for consultations with civil society.

Presentation of the Report
 
CLAUDIO AVRUJ, Secretary of Human Rights and Cultural Pluralism of the Nation, said that the organic structure of the national public administration had been modified in December 2015, changing, inter alia, the name of the Human Rights Secretariat to the Secretariat of Human Rights and Cultural Pluralism.  The Secretariat drafted and promoted policies on cultural pluralism, ethnic, religious and sexual orientation and gender diversity.  A National Directorate for Integrating Policies on Sexual Diversity had also been established.  The National Directorate for Civic Culture and Human Rights designed and implemented online and face-to-face training, seminars and workshops with experts.  In January 2016, the National Institute for Indigenous Affairs had moved to the portfolio of the Secretariat of Human Rights and Cultural Pluralism.  The new concept focused on human rights and aimed to work with other national and provincial bodies, bearing in mind that there were 1,368 recognized communities in Argentina.  The State had made real its commitment to have true, legitimate indigenous participation by creating the Consultative Council for Indigenous Peoples.  In March 2016, the first meeting of the National Board of the Council had taken place. 

In terms of legislative advancements, Mr. Avruj informed that a law on the prevention and eradication of violence against women had been enacted in 2009.  In 2010, a code on equal marriage had been put into place, whereas a 2012 law provided for recognition of the gender identity of a person without a need for judicial authorization.  November 8 had been proclaimed the National Day for Afro-Argentines, with the view of promoting their culture.  A group of lawyers to help victims of gender-based violence had been put in place in 2015.  The Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had been ratified and incorporated into the Constitution in 1994.  Currently, procedures were underway to ratify the Inter-American Convention against Racism, Racial Discrimination and other Forms of Intolerance. 

The National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism worked on combatting all those scourges, in cooperation with civil society and other stakeholders.  The Institute could receive complaints and provide guidance to concerned citizens; it also had an important role in promoting its agenda through audio-visual materials, brochures and educational pamphlets.  In 2016, the authorities had started to design the National Human Rights Plan 2017-2020, which aimed, in general, to improve the planning of public policies focused on human rights.  Among its key pillars were inclusion, human security, non-violence, access to justice, memory, truth and reparatory policies.  The Federal Human Rights Council was an institutional space from which the Human Rights Secretariat was operating across all provinces and the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires.  From December 2015, the Programme Justice 2020 had been in place; it served to provide space for institutional and citizen dialogue, with the aim of creating a transparent and trustworthy justice system.  Access to justice was a basic right, and the focus was thus on vulnerable populations.  Justice 2020 integrated indigenous peoples as genuine true subjects of law.  In order to combat prejudice and racial stigmatization, the project “Visibility and Promotion of Rights of the Afro-descendant Community” had been put in place. 

Particular focus had been put on promoting the gender agenda, and the State was concentrating on women facing multiple forms of discrimination.  In July 2016, the President had submitted the National Action Plan for Prevention, Assistance and Eradication of Violence against Women 2017-2019.  For the first time, strategic planning was now in place.  All women in Argentina were to have equal access to quality care mechanisms.  As of 2016, the implementation of the plan “100 Vulnerable Points in the Country” aimed to assist the most underprivileged populations.  In addition, the National Programme for the Health of Indigenous Persons had been set up.  Argentina had a programme aimed at helping those affected by the conflict in Syria.  The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance had visited Argentina in 2016.  The State was committed to repairing decades of neglect and resolving the remaining issues.



Questions by Experts
 
PASTOR ELIAS MURILLO MARTINEZ, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Argentina, noted that Argentina was a very diverse country.  It was striking that, in spite of such diversity, its Constitution did not recognize the multi-cultural and multi-ethnic nature of the country.   Did the State party have any plans to integrate such aspects into the Constitution? 

Some of the wounds from the 1966-1986 dictatorship were still open today, with numerous victims claiming justice.

More information was sought on the presence of the Jewish community, which had been a victim of two major attacks in recent decades.   

The whole region of the Americas had been marked by systemic racial discrimination, which created stumbling blocks in accessing higher education, lowering life expectancy and increasing poverty among those of African descent.  The link between poverty and racism was very strong.  Some 200 million people across the Americas were of African origin and 47 million belonged to indigenous communities, according to the latest figures, noted Mr. Murillo Martinez.  A person of African descent had a much higher chance of being poor than a person of European descent. 

What information did the State party have on the efforts to comply with the Sustainable Development Goals vis-à-vis persons of indigenous origin?  The State party had a solid constitutional framework which included the National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism, a widely recognized body.  Argentina was also very much open to international scrutiny, as shown by recent visits of Special Procedures. 

The delegation was asked to provide a general overview on the access to land by indigenous peoples.  Argentina was among the largest countries in the world, noted the Expert.  How was the customary law of indigenous persons incorporated in the general legislative framework of Argentina?

Eradicating hunger and malnutrition should be high on the State’s agenda because Argentina was facing significant challenges in that regard.  There was also a lack of water supply in some indigenous communities, and some serious concerns about the conditions of tropical forests, with high deforestation rates.

The Expert raised the question of land ownership by indigenous communities and the need to conduct proper prior consultations with indigenous groups.  How was prior consultation actually taking place, and what blocks were there in implementing this further?   

A question on the census was also raised.  Why were those of African descent not more visible in today’s Argentina?  How had the numbers of those of African descent decreased dramatically over the past 100 years?  How about migrants from African countries?  Several concrete cases of violence and bias against persons of Senegalese origin were presented and further information was requested. 

There was a great degree of speculation in the media on establishing a special centre for the detention of the migrant population.  Mr. Murillo Martinez asked for detailed information in that regard.   The delegation was also requested to provide more details on the new legislation allegedly limiting immigration.

Another Expert noted that the combined periodic report had been submitted late.  He raised the issue of avoiding violent evictions of indigenous communities.  It was important that greater information be provided on such cases.  What measures – legislative initiatives, for example – were intended for adoption to avoid such evictions?  The liberation of an imprisoned social indigenous leader was encouraged; she should be allowed to defend herself in a suitable manner.

The Expert wanted to know about the effects of fracking on water.  What were local families going to do with such a restricted water supply, he inquired.  There were good policies at the federal level, but contradictions existed at the local and provincial levels.  How could it be ensured that the Argentinian legal system would achieve legal harmony so that such contradictions would be avoided? 

An Expert asked about the criminalization of racist activities.  He also wanted to know about lodging complaints by indigenous communities.  Were those complaints lodged to the National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism, and from the Institute to the courts?  Clarification was also sought on the “strategically selected cases” mentioned in the report.

While the report had been received with a delay, an Expert praised the methodology used in it.  The State party had replied to all points of concern and the concluding observations by the Committee.   The Expert reiterated an earlier question on what the State party was planning to do to prevent forced evictions. 

Regarding developing land titles by indigenous populations, the Expert noted that provinces could resolve some problems arising from indigenous persons, but those could also be dealt with by the Federal Congress.  More information was sought on mechanisms to demarcate ancestral lands – lands traditionally occupied by indigenous persons.

Questions were raised on bilingual education and training of teachers in that regard.   Did the State party have any plans to mark the International Decade of Persons of African Descent?

Another Expert brought up the status of Afro-Latin women.

The State party’s report affirmed the value of the Durban Conference, said the Expert.  It was positive that the State policy towards contributions of persons of African descent had not changed with the change of Government.  It was good that Argentina was increasingly recognizing the diversity of its people.

The Expert also wanted to hear the delegation’s thoughts on possible modifications of the Constitution so that it could be more inclusive and accepting of the country’s multi-culturalism.

The issue of the follow-up to the Committee’s concluding observations was brought up by another Expert.  Issues included forced evictions and prohibition of discrimination in employment, housing and education.  Argentina had never submitted a follow-up report. Why was that the case, and could the delegation provide an update on those issues?

Various laws and degrees had come into force targeting racial and other forms of discrimination, said an Expert.  He asked the delegation to clarify why sufficient budgetary resources had not been allocated to the National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism, and what the State party was intending to do in that regard.  Public education programmes were also needed to ensure that the existing legislation was properly implemented.  The implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals would also have significant positive consequences on the conditions of the indigenous peoples. 

Persons of African descent who were victims of racial discrimination needed to be compensated and crimes against them prosecuted, said another Expert.  Statistics in that regard would be welcome. 

The “Justice 2020” programme aimed to bring justice closer to the local level.  How would that happen in practice, she asked.  The delegation was asked to explain why there were more Afro-descendants in rural than urban areas.

A question was asked if there was underreporting of cases of labour discrimination.  What facilities were there for non-governmental organizations and civil society to report labour exploitation?  What support was the State providing to such victims?  What specialization did lawyers and judges in that area have? 

How had access to higher education, health and housing improved for people of African descent, indigenous people and migrants?  Data was also asked for on funds dedicated to fighting racial discrimination.

An Expert said that the delegation had presented a very long list of legislation adopted, which sounded very progressive, but also seemed to be on paper only. 

More information was sought about immigrants in irregular situations and their path to regularizing their status and getting decent employment.  What were their prospects for protection and job opportunities?  How about “fraudulent marriages” between migrants and Argentine nationals?  The Expert also wanted to get statistics about the prison population – how many were indigenous, of African descent, and migrants?

If provinces of Argentina were autonomous, that meant that they could establish their own constitutions, which could even go against the federal law.  What legal value was given to the implementation of the Convention in the provinces?  What if a province decided that the Convention was not applicable there?

Were there any reports from the Secretariat of Human Rights which had identified areas of weakness in the implementation of international law in Argentina, and the Convention in particular?  Were there statistics on cases in which the Supreme Court had ruled on issues related to the Convention?   

The delegation was asked to provide figures and indicators on the various national plans listed in the opening remarks.

An Expert inquired whether civil society had been consulted in the preparation of the report.

What was the State doing to ensure that the policies targeting the Afro-Argentine population were effective?  Where could information on the improvements in literacy rates, higher education enrolment and political participation be found?

The terms multicultural and intercultural dialogues were used in the report on several occasions.  However, the State was not presenting itself as a multicultural State. 

Why was the indigenous population only 2.3 per cent of the total population, the Expert wondered? 

The delegation was asked to provide information on the appointment of the Ombudsman.

How was the presence of indigenous groups reflected in the decision making of the State?

What policies were in place to effectively regularize the status of migrants, asked the Expert?  A question was also asked about the language in legal proceedings involving indigenous persons and persons of African descent.

One of the areas for discrimination was related to autonomous work performed by migrants.     

The Expert also wanted to hear about steps taken to combat xenophobic rhetoric in political discourse?

The delegation was asked about budgets allocated to each of the public policies aimed at minority populations. 

What status did the Gypsies enjoy in Argentina, the Expert inquired.  Another Expert noted that Roma/Gypsies were discriminated against around the world. 

Regarding the recently established Consultative Council, the Expert wondered about its functions.  It was paradoxical that indigenous peoples had not been consulted in the process of its establishment.

The State party was praised for the fact that those of African descent featured in the official census for the first time in history.

Information was asked for on the access of migrants to particular social services, and how many years of residence were needed before such services could be claimed.

The delegation was also asked how Argentina would inform the general public and civil society of the current proceedings at the Committee.  The job of the Committee, the Expert stressed, was to support States parties in implementing the Convention to which they had voluntarily signed up to. 






Replies by the Delegation
 
The delegation took due note of comments on the delay in submitting the periodic report.  The matter would be taken seriously for future submissions, and an effective follow-up would be ensured.

Argentina was permanently working on education, trying to make sure that all programmes were long-term.  The State was working on a widened human rights agenda.  The Government was also trying to limit the consequences of fracking and deforestation, especially in the distant communities neglected in the past.

The Government was now pushing for an agenda which had never existed before, including historic re-vindication for Afro descendants.   The authorities were working with the Afro-Argentine communities to build trust.  Argentina would always be a country of open doors, building a peaceful society.

The Government rejected and repudiated all xenophobic and racist speech and actions.  The Anti-discrimination Law, which was being finalized, would ensure that on a permanent basis.  The National Institute for Indigenous Affairs had not seen its budget cut, but, on the contrary, its budget had recently increased by seven per cent.

Full access to justice and education, without restrictions, was ensured for migrants, stressed the head of the delegation.

There was regrettably very little statistical information available, which was being rectified now.

There was no official data on the presence of the Jewish community in Argentina; but figures provided by the community itself indicated that there were some 250,000 Jewish Argentinians.  

The State respected provincial autonomy, but took due note of the opinion of the Group of Arbitrary Detention in that regard. 

The Institution of the Ombudsmen had been systematically rejected by the previous Government, and the issue was being looked into now.

In Argentina, the Roma community was known as Gypsies, explained the delegation.  

Regarding migratory policies, the delegation said that they were open and inclusive.  The right to migration was essential and an inalienable right of each person, guaranteed by the State of Argentina.  Foreigners who wished to immigrate to Argentina could make their situation regular by following rules; 85 per cent of migrants came from Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) and associated countries.  For them, it was not necessary to present their nationality and the certificate of no criminal past, and within two years they could become nationals of Argentina.  For those coming from outside of MERCOSUR, other rules were in place.  Under the “Patria grande” programme, those in an irregular situation had been given a chance to be regularized.  There was a special programme in place for Syrian citizens affected by the conflict in their country. 

The delegation explained that it was guaranteed that appropriate legal assistance was also provided to foreigners speaking languages other than Spanish.  Foreigners also had the right to appeal with regard to the decision on their expulsion.  Argentina was currently working on the system to make expulsions more expeditious.  The category of independent workers was being currently looked into; MERCOSUR nationals simply needed to present their passport and the certificate of non-pursuit. 

Marriage certificates which were the result of fraud were annulled, as in all other countries.  Pseudo-tourists were turned away at the border, but they could appeal to that measure.  The Migration Directorate and the International Organization for Migration were carrying out training on human rights and anti-discriminatory policies within all of the Directorate’s structures.

A detention centre for migrants was foreseen because migrants should not be housed with persons who had committed crimes as was the case now.  It would be a non-penitentiary institution in nature; foreigners would be held there only until their deportation, and the centre would be in Buenos Aires in order to secure the foreigners’ access to their consulates, interpretation and legal assistance.  They would be separated by gender, and would be provided with medical assistance and suitable accommodation and food.

In 2015, 94 per cent of the prison population in Argentina were Argentinians, and six per cent were foreigners. 

Foreigners needed to live in Argentina for five years and be naturalized in order to have access to disability allowances, explained a delegate.

The National Plan of Action on Human Rights was in place to implement Argentina’s international commitments, and its main areas included memory, truth and justice, inclusion, fight against discrimination and inequality. The Plan was focused on the dialogue between different stakeholders.  It was expected to strengthen local authorities working on human rights. 

Hundreds of thousands of hectares of land had been transferred to indigenous communities. The Government was working on indigenous issues in a cross-cutting manner.  A special programme was in place for the indigenous peoples’ health, including food security and food education in schools.  Efforts were being made to facilitate their access to justice, through local centres which worked with all stakeholders at local, provincial and national levels.  Guidelines for professionals and consultants working in those centres had been established.       

If there were any indications of violations of rights of indigenous communities, actions were taken to look into those violations and rectify them.  The right to prior consent was a collective right held by the indigenous people.  The Supreme Court had declared that that right was mandatory, in accordance with the ILO Convention 169.  Protocols were in place for ensuring prior and informed consent, assured the delegation.

The Government was working on preparing a comprehensive plan that would cover infrastructure projects and the demarcation of indigenous territories.

The objective was to double agricultural production by 2030, as part of the State’s plans to implement the Sustainable Development Goals.  In order to achieve those goals, the Secretariat for Human Rights was focusing on eliminating poverty and ensuring minimum protection for all vulnerable populations.  By 2030, all men and women should have the same rights when it came to the access to basic services, appropriate new technologies and financial services such as micro-funding.  Inclusive, representative and participative institutions responding to the needs of all ought to be established.

Turning to intercultural relations, a delegate stated that there were some restrictions on people of different social and economic backgrounds to exercise all of their rights.  Thus, social inequalities persisted in some areas, and groups of people were exposed to multiple forms of discrimination.  What was necessary in response was cross-cutting policies by the Government: racial discrimination could not be talked about without addressing other forms of discrimination.  It was the State’s priority to provide equal opportunity for all of its citizens which was why an intersectional approach was being developed.   

Historically, there had been an approach which had made the African-Argentinian community invisible.  Related historical processes included the slave trade and Cabo Verdean immigration.  A glossary had been set up of everyday language, with words of Afro-descendant origin, with the aim of showing the full history of African culture in Argentina.  Not all of Afro-descendants followed African religions, explained the delegation.  A book fair and a Techopolis exhibition had been organized to promote the visibility of the Afro-Argentine population.  The goal was to popularize the idea that Argentina was also African in culture.  Materials for the formal education sector were being developed, with the view of raising awareness of the presence of Afro-descendants.  A national day of Afro-Argentines had been established.  It was important to secure re-vindication of important Afro-Argentinian historical figures.

The delegation said that the most important fact was that the mass media had a more positive approach and avoided reproducing the old stereotypes.  Positive work was that of extending the messages of non-discrimination. 

Regarding access to justice and racial profiling, there was no doubt that the current Argentinian legislation covered all aspects of discrimination on the basis of race, belief, gender, physical characteristics and other traits.  Discrimination was an aggravating circumstance to a crime.  Sentences from one month to one year were issued for discriminating against people on the basis of their race or religion.  It was important to understand that more than 50 per cent of all the cases in courts had served as a basis for positive action within the justice system.  Very small percentages of all cases in courts related to indigenous, Afro-Argentine and migrant persons.  Anyone who could not afford a lawyer would have a free lawyer paid by the State.  In all cases of criminal nature, the National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism would take an active role and could appear as a friend of the court.  Neighbourhood justice projects aimed to balance two elements – access to justice and mediation services as alternative ways to resolve conflict.

The protection of collective interests covered vulnerable groups, said a delegate.  Observatories were dedicated to specific fields, such as sports, mass media and social networks and other Internet platforms.    Those observatories issued technical reports which were then sometimes used by the judiciary.  The National University of Buenos Aires also consolidated such data, which was then used for public policy.

In the legal framework, when indigenous matters were involved, indigenous customary law could be applied in recognition of indigenous and ethnic diversity. 

The right to a healthy environment was included in Argentina’s legislation; the idea was that the current generation’s needs would not compromise future generation’s needs.  One of the first results of the constitutional reforms was the protection of biological diversity and ensuring sustainable development.  Results of various activities on the environment were analyzed with the view of ensuring that the environment was not harmed.     

Follow-up Questions by Experts
 
PASTOR ELIAS MURILLO MARTINEZ, Committee Member and Rapporteur for Argentina, highlighted the value Argentina gave to the concept of diversity, which was being translated into political work.  Having 12 October as the National Day of Diversity was a positive development.  Good news was also given on the demarcation of indigenous lands.  The Committee also better understood the reasons for lower visibility of the people of African descent in Argentina.  Information on the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals was also most welcome.

Only 50 per cent of the territories requested by the indigenous communities had been handed back.  At what stage were the negotiations on the remaining 50 per cent, asked the Expert? 

Repeated concerns were expressed regarding migratory policies, especially vis-à-vis the establishment of the detention centre.  Would that be a real detention centre or just a temporary holding place?  What was the objective being pursued there, and what was the legal underpinning for its functioning?  How about migrants accused of certain crimes?

The delegation was asked to provide additional information about the National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism, the central institution to combat racial discrimination.

An Expert brought up the issue of the composition of the Consultation Council.  Information was received that very few indigenous leaders had been able to attend its relevant meetings, due to budgetary and other constraints.  The delegation was asked to provide more clarity.

How did the State party interpret multiculturalism and how were indigenous people benefiting from it?

The question on the Ombudsmen was reiterated.  Were the reports of the Ombudsmen regarding the treatment of minorities in the media public?  Those types of prejudice and stereotypes needed to be known in order to help direct public policies.  

Another Expert acknowledged that Argentina had an elaborate machinery to combat racism and racial discrimination, but the National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism seemed to miss coordination with indigenous peoples.  There was also reportedly the problem of funding.  Another Expert wondered whether the funding figures for the National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism were public. 

People of African descent and indigenous communities were not sufficiently involved in political decision-making.  How about introducing a quota system to ensure their participation?

A question was also raised about affirmative measures possibly taken to eliminate discrimination of any form.  Were any such measures planned for adoption in the future?

Article 8 of the Convention related to the special fund to provide for the functioning of the Committee.  Nowadays, the Committee received money from the ordinary budget of the United Nations.

How were the existing anti-racism instruments evaluated, an Expert asked.

An Expert asked whether there were consultations with civil society regarding the detention centre for migrants.

How did indigenous people respond to the date of 12 October, which used to be called “Discovery Day”?

Replies by the Delegation
 
The delegation said that Argentina had extended an invitation to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to visit Argentina. 

The National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism was a central pillar of the Argentinian democracy, said the head of the delegation, who had personally participated in its creation 20 years earlier.  The National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism was a grassroots initiative by civil society to combat discrimination.  It was fully committed to combatting racial, ethnic and religious discrimination.  The National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism was decentralized and it had a financial and structural autonomy. 

There were no changes in migration policies of Argentina.  The country was built on migration; there were more than 50 different communities in Argentina, which was an example for an intercultural dialogue in Latin America.

A delegate provided details of a law providing grounds for the establishment of the detention centre.  There was also a whole range of international standards to be followed, including access of detained persons to their consulates.

In 2016, different indigenous communities had received 1,800 000 hectares of land, or 85 per cent, clarified the delegation.  In the process, all efforts had been made to avoid forced evictions and properly demarcate those territories.  The process was underway for the remaining 15 per cent.

The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court had already declared the superiority of the ILO Convention 169.

Written statistical data would be provided within 48 hours, said a delegate.

There had indeed been difficulties for some local leaders to come to the consultations in Buenos Aires.  The Consultative Council foresaw that all relevant stakeholders should take part in negotiations. 

The Ombudsman was one of the institutions constantly carrying out training and lodging complaints, explained the delegation.

Argentina had received Mutuma Ruteere, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and his recommendations were taken into consideration.  The Federal Council on Policies Affecting Indigenous Peoples had been established.  There were still outstanding issues pertaining to indigenous peoples, such as questions of land, acknowledged the head of the delegation.

Many affirmative measures had been taken.  The decision of the State to create the National Institute to Combat Discrimination and the denomination of 12 October as the date were among were among those.   

A delegate stated that the roadmap for anti-discrimination education was updated every three years, and amended as often as necessary.  

It was reiterated that racial discrimination was considered an aggravating circumstance. 

Free legal services depended on the financial status of the defendant. 

Concluding Remarks
 
PASTOR ELIAS MURILLO MARTINEZ, Committee Member and Rapporteur for Argentina, stated that the dialogue was very educational in numerous aspects.  The practice of evictions would hopefully be completely eradicated.  The Committee had taken note of the case of Milagro Amalia, and the State party was encouraged to continue looking into it.  Laws related to quotas of minorities could be reconsidered by the State party, said the Rapporteur.  There was no doubt that Argentina understood the value added of what migrants could bring to the country.  It seemed, however, that there was migration of first class and second class; the situation of women from the Dominican Republic, for example, was quite dramatic.  The Committee was also looking forward to receiving information on the progress in investigating the crimes against the Jewish Community.  More clarification was needed on the migrant detention centre.

CLAUDIO AVRUJ, Secretary for Human Rights and Cultural Pluralism of the Nation, said that the wealth of information and questions by the Committee would significantly help the State party.  Answers which could not be provided now would be provided in writing shortly, including on the migrant detention centre.  Argentina was a country of open doors which highly valued immigration.  Ever since becoming a democracy, human rights polices had become a priority for Argentina and that would continue to be the case.
__________________

For use of the information media; not an official record

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