Experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Commend San Marino’s Progress in Establishing a National Human Rights Institute, Ask about Efforts to Prohibit Discrimination Based on Skin Colour and Descent and to Prevent Online Hate Speech

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today concluded its consideration of the initial report of San Marino, with Committee Experts commending the State on its progress in establishing a national human rights institute, and inquiring about efforts to develop legislation prohibiting discrimination based on skin colour and descent and to prevent online hate speech.

Bakri Sidiki Diaby, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, congratulated the Government on progress achieved in setting up a national human rights institute. The legislative process appeared to have already been launched. This institution needed sufficient human and financial resources to carry out its mandate, he said.

Mazalo Tebie, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the non-discrimination provision in the Constitution and other definitions in legislation such as the Criminal Code were not fully consistent with that of the Convention, as they did not prohibit discrimination based on skin colour or descent. How would the State party approach prohibiting these forms of discrimination?

Ms. Tebie said a blog had reportedly published numerous sensational articles about migrants, which were later found to be false or grossly exaggerated. A newspaper reportedly accused a gypsy of theft, implicitly conveying a stereotypical image of the Roma. What follow-up had the State party conducted for these events? What measures had been taken to prevent and protect against hate speech in the media and on the internet and to collect data on online hate speech and hate crimes?

Introducing the report, Marcello Beccari, Ambassador of San Marino to the United Nations in Geneva and head of the delegation, said San Marino was appearing before the Committee for the first time after ratifying the Convention in 2002, having recently submitted its initial report through the simplified reporting procedure. San Marino was actively committed to developing instruments for the prevention, combatting and punishment of crimes related to racial discrimination.

The delegation said the State had last month received a petition to create a “Guarantor of Human Rights”. The Government would evaluate this petition and submit it to the Great and General Council, which would decide whether or not to accept the petition. Elections would take place next June, so the next Government would be responsible for moving forward with the petition.

On the State party’s anti-discrimination legislation, Mr. Beccari said article four of the Constitution established the principle of equality of all citizens before the law, and law 66 of 2008 introduced in the Criminal Code a provision defining racial, ethnic, religious and sexual discrimination as an aggravating circumstance. The delegation added that courts routinely punished discrimination cases, including cases involving discrimination based on skin colour and ethnicity, with the widest possible application of the Criminal Code.

Concerning online hate speech and hate crimes, the delegation said that the judicial police investigated complaints and seized equipment and took down websites if it found evidence of such crimes. The police had a monitoring system that checked for hate speech linked to the San Marino population. The State dealt with content on registered media and private blogs in the same manner, investigating suspected hate speech ex-officio as required.

In concluding remarks, Ms. Tebie thanked the delegation from San Marino for their efforts to answer the Committee’s questions. The dialogue had demonstrated the State party’s willingness to collaborate with the Committee. The authorities needed to strengthen data collection mechanisms and other reforms to implement the Convention, she concluded.

Mr. Beccari, in his concluding remarks, said that during the dialogue, San Marino had described its legislative and policy measures to implement the provisions of the Convention. Work had not yet finished; there was much remaining to be done. The State party would take careful note of the Committee’s recommendations and exert efforts to address the issues raised in the dialogue.

The delegation of San Marino consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Secretariat of State for Justice and the Family; Department of Education; Office of Information, Technology, Data and Statistics; Civil Registry Office; Office for Employment and Active Policies; Commission for Equal Opportunities; Gendarmerie; Civil Police; Guard of the Rock; and the Permanent Mission of San Marino to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of San Marino after the conclusion of its one hundred and twelfth session on 26 April. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Committee’s one hundred and twelfth session and other documents related to the session can be found here.

The Committee will next meet in public on Tuesday, 16 April at 3 p.m. to consider the combined thirteenth and fourteenth periodic report of Albania (CERD/C/ALB/13-14).

Report

The Committee has before it the initial report of San Marino (CERD/C/SMR/1).

Presentation of Report

MARCELLO BECCARI, Ambassador of San Marino to the United Nations in Geneva and head of the delegation, said San Marino was appearing before the Committee for the first time today after ratifying the Convention in 2002, having recently submitted its initial report through the simplified reporting procedure. San Marino was actively committed to developing instruments for the prevention, combatting and punishment of crimes related to racial discrimination, and implemented and strengthened particularly effective measures in many areas covered by the Convention. The country was subject to monitoring and evaluation by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance.

Article 4 of the Constitution, the “Declaration of the Rights of Citizens and the Fundamental Principles of the Legal Order”, established the principle of equality of all citizens before the law, from which the principle of non-discrimination could be inferred. The Constitution stated that San Marino was required to comply with the provisions set forth in international declarations on human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the Convention, which prevailed over domestic legislation in cases of conflict. Law 66 of 2008 introduced in the Criminal Code a provision defining racial, ethnic, religious and sexual discrimination as an aggravating circumstance.

One of two national bodies providing protection to victims of discrimination was the Authority for Equal Opportunities, an independent body dedicated to the protection of women victims of all forms of violence. It devised policies and promoted actions aimed at preventing and combatting violence against women, gender-based violence, and discrimination. The second body, the Commission for Equal Opportunities, was an advisory body appointed by the Great and General Council, the State’s Parliament, which monitored the implementation of gender equality policies, provided support to people suffering discrimination, and promoted initiatives and raised awareness of the importance of equal opportunities in San Marino society.

San Marino had recently embarked on a process to create a “Hub for equal opportunities and for preventing and combatting discrimination and intolerance”, creating a working group last March to define regulatory measures for establishing the Hub. In addition, the “Technical and Administrative Secretariat for Equal Opportunities, Bioethics and Social Inclusion” was created in 2023 to support Commissions, Authorities and Committees in the areas of equal opportunities, bioethics, social inclusion, and the rights of persons with disabilities.

San Marino attached great importance to education as a means of promoting respect and fighting against racial discrimination. In the country's schools, teaching aimed at respecting and enhancing cultural and ethnic diversity was a regular practice. The State had also signed the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s Convention against Discrimination in Education, which entered into force on 11 June 2020, and was in the process of acceding to the Organization’s Convention on Cultural Diversity.

In January 2019, San Marino ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime and the Additional Protocol thereto concerning the criminalisation of racist and xenophobic acts committed by means of computer systems. In San Marino, a legislative measure intended to effectively implement the provisions of this Convention was currently being drafted, with a view to introducing new offences. San Marino had abolished compulsory religious education in schools, offering the “Ethics, Culture and Society” course for those who chose not to participate in religion classes. The State was committed to a broader and diversified vision of education, promoting values of tolerance, respect and intercultural understanding. Initiatives were underway to reaffirm the values of religious pluralism and intercultural dialogue.

On 28 April 2022, the authorities, in collaboration with the Italian Observatory for Security against Acts of Discrimination, organised a conference dedicated to the fight against hate crimes and the prevention of all forms of discrimination. The State party was increasingly aware of the importance of ongoing training of law enforcement authorities and legal professionals. Following the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, San Marino also promptly took action to welcome Ukrainian citizens in a sustainable manner and within the limits of its actual capacities.

Questions by Committee Experts

MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the diversity of the State party’s delegation indicated its interest in implementing the Convention. The Committee took note of regulatory and other reforms implemented by the State to give effect to the Convention. She said that 20 per cent of the population were foreigners, predominately Italians. Why did the State party not collect data on religious groups? Did it have disaggregated data on refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons? What barriers were there to accessing their data? Could the State party provide data on persons who did not speak San Marino, also known as Emilian-Romagna, as their mother tongue? What other languages were spoken? Could the State party provide information on the socio-economic situation of the different groups of the population, disaggregated by national origin, sex and place of residence? Which institutions and members of civil society were involved in preparing the report?

Ms. Tebie said the Constitution and law 66 of 2008 of the Criminal Code did not give effect to the principle of non-discrimination. The non-discrimination provision in the Constitution and other definitions in legislation such as the Criminal Code were not fully consistent with that of the Convention, as they did not prohibit discrimination based on skin colour or descent. How would the State party approach prohibiting these forms of discrimination? When would comprehensive civil and administrative legislation against racial discrimination, including direct and indirect discrimination, be adopted? Did the State party have a policy or develop programmes and plans of action on racial discrimination? What were the results of these?

The State party reported that no cases of racism or racial discrimination had been registered in San Marino courts and therefore the provisions of the Convention had not been applied. However, there were reports of isolated cases of prejudice against foreigners. Could the delegation provide detailed information on these allegations? What measures were in place to facilitate the filing of complaints of racial discrimination and to raise awareness of the Convention among judges, magistrates, law enforcement officials, public officials and lawyers, as well as among the public? What training and awareness-raising campaigns had been undertaken by the State on the Convention and on existing legislation relating to racism and racial discrimination? Had the State party set up a digital system for monitoring the frequency of racist and discriminatory acts as planned? Could it provide data on reported incidents and events and the follow-up to these cases?

A Committee Expert asked about punishments issued for different acts of racial discrimination. Could cases of racial discrimination not currently addressed by legislation be prosecuted ex-officio?

Another Committee Expert said the Committee had not received submissions from non-governmental organizations, which was highly unusual. Were there any non-governmental organizations in San Marino and did they work with the Government?

One Committee Expert said persons could sue the State for damages caused by judges. What was the process for making cases against judges? Were prosecution authorities bound to initiate court cases on discrimination after complaints were filed? How did the State prevent frivolous cases from being heard in court?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said San Marino had the will to accede to international human rights conventions but had great difficulties in presenting reports and providing information regarding these conventions due to its limited capacities. However, the State party was exerting efforts to implement the Convention. Schools, for example, were working to combat discrimination. The official language was Italian. The administration worked to provide Italian education to the population. The Department of Foreign Affairs collaborated with all different stakeholders in preparing the report. The State party was not aware of any domestic non-governmental organizations specifically working on preventing racial discrimination. This indicated that racial discrimination was not seen as a serious problem in the State.

San Marino did not collect data on the different religions in the country. Each citizen, however, was free to choose their own religion or to not have a religion. The State party also did not conduct surveys on sexual orientation or ethnicity. It did collect data on non-nationals.

Prison sentences of six months to three years were issued in proven cases of racial discrimination. Discrimination cases could also be prosecuted ex-officio if there were aggravating factors. Magistrates had a right and a duty to be trained. “Protection of minorities” was chosen as a topic of focus for training of magistrates for 2024. Judges could never be responsible for overseeing cases involving discriminatory acts that they had allegedly committed. Courts routinely punished discrimination cases, including cases involving discrimination based on skin colour and ethnicity, with the widest possible application of the Criminal Code.

A training scheme was in place for all law enforcement agencies, which had a code of conduct calling on all officers to respect the principle of equality of all citizens before the law. Training emphasised this principle. There were training courses focusing on hate crimes, anti-trafficking, organised crime and cybercrime. In 2022, the police force organised a summit to raise awareness among police officers of their duty to prevent discrimination. The police force also organised events in schools discouraging young people from using drugs and engaging in hate crimes. All citizens and residents could seek help from police officers at any time.

There was wide legal protection from discrimination, including through article four of the Constitution. San Marino judges had applied the principles of the Convention for over 30 years. All citizens were supported to actively participate in socio-economic life. A Constitutional law from 2019 amended article four of the Constitution to address discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Questions by Committee Experts

BAKRI SIDIKI DIABY, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked about measures taken to establish a body with specialised capacity to monitor and combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance? What steps had been taken to establish an independent and effective national human rights institution in line with the Paris Principles? What measures were in place to adopt a national action plan against racism? What activities had been organised under the framework of the International Decade for People of African Descent and how had groups and persons of African descent been involved in implementing and monitoring these initiatives?

A Committee Expert said the State had a lack of professionals specialising in human rights. Why was this?

MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the Authority for Equal Opportunities and the Commission for Equal Opportunities both had competence to deal with complaints. How did the State party deal with overlap in the duties of these bodies and encourage cooperation between them?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said San Marino had not organised specific events for the International Decade for People of African Descent as people of African descent made up less than one per cent of the population.

The State party had tried many times to create a national human rights institute but needed to consider the peculiarities of its small territory. The State had last month received a petition to create a “Guarantor of Human Rights”. The Government would evaluate this petition and submit it to the Great and General Council, which would decide whether or not to accept the petition. Elections would take place next June, so the next Government would be responsible for moving forward with the petition.

The Commission for Equal Opportunities elaborated legal provisions and policies for fighting racial discrimination and intolerance and offered legal advice on bills under scrutiny in Parliament related to discrimination. It also promoted events related to discrimination. The Authority for Equal Opportunities provided legal support for victims of discrimination and helped them to access employment and counselling. It also monitored the implementation of laws on discrimination. Both bodies supported the drafting of periodic reports for international bodies. The State party had devised a working group aiming to enhance these bodies and establish a third body specifically focused on preventing racial discrimination and intolerance. A secretariat supporting the functions of the previous two bodies had also recently been created and a venue established so that these bodies could work together in the same place. The secretariat was working on enhancing the procedure for filing complaints related to discrimination.

Follow-Up Questions by Committee Experts

One Committee Expert said that even if there was only a small population of people of African descent, it was important to provide education on people of African descent and other minorities to prevent discrimination.

MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked about measures taken to facilitate the filing of complaints related to discrimination. Had a digital system for this purpose been set up?

BAKRI SIDIKI DIABY, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, congratulated the Government on progress achieved in setting up a national human rights institute. The legislative process appeared to have already been launched. This institution needed sufficient human and financial resources to carry out its mandate. How was San Marino working to prevent discrimination against people of African descent?

Another Committee Expert asked about efforts made by the State to reduce barriers to accessing San Marino nationality.

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the State party had an official website which published official data in Italian and English. Eighty per cent of the population had San Marino nationality, 15 per cent were Italians and the remaining five per cent were other nationalities, mainly Argentinians and United States nationals.

The police force could receive complaints of discrimination at all times. When it received complaints of discrimination, it was obliged to notify the courts. All police officers used the same digital system to manage records of discrimination complaints.

Persons needed to be residents of San Marino for 10 years to obtain San Marino citizenship. This period was shortened from 20 years recently. To obtain citizenship, persons needed to give up all other nationalities. A law on giving up nationality in cases of naturalisation was devised in 2010, and this would soon be revised to accommodate the recent changes to the naturalisation process.

Questions by Committee Experts

MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked how article 179 bis of the Criminal Code punished incitement to hatred or discrimination against a person or members of a group because of their colour or ancestry. She also asked about public and private organizations and individuals that carried out propaganda activities or incited racial discrimination. What mechanisms were in place to combat hate speech, especially against non-citizens? What were the effects of these measures? Seven criminal proceedings had been initiated under article 179 bis, most of which were closed during the investigation phase. What were the grounds of discrimination in these cases? What progress had been made on the open cases? What reparations were offered to victims? Had the State party established a national contact point on hate crime?

A 2014 law provided for the establishment of an autonomous body responsible for protecting and controlling media operators, and rules for newspaper publishers, including online publications. What progress had been made in establishing these? What results had been achieved by the project on including media literacy in the school curriculum? A blog had reportedly published numerous sensational articles about migrants, which were later found to be false or grossly exaggerated. Another newspaper reportedly accused a “zingaro” (a gypsy) of theft, implicitly conveying a stereotypical image of the Roma. What follow-up had the State party conducted for these events?

The 2014 law did not cover all media, particularly online publications such as blogs and social networks. What measures were envisaged to ensure full legal coverage of all media? The Committee welcomed that the State party had ratified the Convention on Cybercrime and its Additional Protocol. What measures had been taken to prevent and protect against hate speech in the media and on the internet and to collect data on online hate speech and hate crimes? Could the State party provide data on complaints of such crimes?

Cases of populist and xenophobic rhetoric were reportedly observed during the electoral campaign of the last legislative elections. Several lists contained evocative names such as “no-migranti” (no to migrants) or “no Europa”. What measures were being taken to encourage self-regulation by political parties to prevent the use of offensive or hateful speech by their representatives? Had the State party adopted a code of conduct for parliamentarians that provided for suspensions and other sanctions for hate speech? Did foreigners have the right to run as candidates for State administrative units?

A case of ethnic profiling based on skin colour was reported in the press in 2018 concerning a black person who travelled regularly for work in San Marino. Had any other cases of racial profiling been brought to the attention of the authorities? What follow-up was given to detected cases of racial profiling in terms of punishment of perpetrators and reparation for victims? What measures were being taken to prevent and combat racial profiling? Were there awareness-raising, training and information activities for police officers on racial profiling laws?

Did foreign care workers have the right to family reunification? There were increasing numbers of women caregivers from Romania, Ukraine and Moldova (“badanti”) who were exposed to the risk of exploitation, prejudice and negative generalisations. How many badanti were working in the care sector? How was the State party working to reduce the precarious employment of these persons and other care workers? How many of these persons were registered by the San Marino Workers Union?

Non-national workers employed through outsourcing and undeclared workers, particularly in the construction sector, reportedly benefited from significantly less advantageous conditions in terms of wages, holidays and career progression than their colleagues. What measures were in place to address the disproportionate impact that these employment practices had on non-citizens? Some nursing staff of the public hospital in San Marino of Romanian nationality had had their contracts terminated on certain occasions due to having a poor command of Italian. What measures were being taken to ensure that there was no discrimination on grounds such as language, nationality, national or ethnic origin in the recruitment of nurses or other health workers in public hospitals and other health facilities? The compulsory social security system excluded non-citizens holding only a residence permit from certain social benefits, such as the unemployment benefit. Did the State party plan to review its social security system? What measures were in place to support foreign workers who did not have a residence permit to access medical services?

What was the total number of non-Italian-speaking children in kindergartens, primary schools and middle schools? Were these children taught in their mother tongue? What policies and strategies had been put in place to protect the linguistic culture of non-Italian-speaking populations?

One Committee Expert asked about measures being taken to address the use of artificial intelligence to spread misinformation and disinformation on racial issues.

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said that for 30 years, San Marino had had an agreement with the European Union to not conduct formal checks at borders. The Labour Office monitored all frontier and local workers thoroughly, including through its labour inspectorate. Every year, the inspectorate ran more than 3,000 inspections. It conducted building checks on a daily basis. The inspectorate had not identified any cases of racial discrimination of workers. It was working to ensure that foreign workers worked under the same conditions as residents and nationals. If crimes were detected, inspectors were obliged to notify the competent judicial authorities. The recent law on foreign workers did not address outsourcing. Non-national workers had access to insured health care.

San Marino currently had 450 contracts in place between households and private care providers. Care for the elderly was the widest sector of the care industry, and Romanians, Ukrainians and Moldovans were the highest represented nationalities among care workers. Care workers could access 12-month residence permits that could be renewed three times. Paid vacations were granted to these workers. The Government provided health checks free of charge to all care workers. These workers could file complaints of discrimination with the Government, but it had so far received no complaints. The case involving health care workers in the national hospital was currently before the courts.

Article 179 bis did not explicitly address discrimination based on descent or skin colour, but there were examples of two punishments issued by courts for such discrimination. A case of discrimination on the basis of sexual discrimination was currently under investigation.

The judicial police investigated complaints of online hate speech and hate crimes, and seized equipment and took down websites if it found evidence of such crimes. The police had a monitoring system that checked for hate speech linked to the San Marino population. Law enforcement agencies investigated online activities related to major events and elections. The State dealt with content on registered media and private blogs in the same manner, investigating suspected hate speech ex-officio as required. The State party had ratified the Budapest Convention. The new law on cyber bullying provided access to justice for minor victims of cyber bullying, defined the crime and regulated ex-officio investigations into cyber bullying. Anonymity was granted to people who lodged complaints.

Follow-Up Questions by Committee Experts

One Committee Expert asked whether care workers whose four-year contracts had expired stayed in San Marino. What did they do after the four years had elapsed? Were there provisions allowing for family reunion for these workers?

Another Committee Expert asked about the law applied by judges to supress acts of discrimination based on skin colour and descent.

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said family reunification was granted for children and spouses for foreign workers with contracts. After four years had elapsed, foreign workers were not required to return to their home countries. They could apply for a new renewable contract.

Article 179 bis of the Criminal Code addressed, by extension, crimes based on descent and skin colour, and the Convention had been implemented in sentencing related to these crimes. When violations by public officials were identified, they were tried under the Criminal Code. Military agents were tried by the Military Commission. Public officials received training on preventing discrimination.

The State party was conducting educational projects promoting racial harmony, democratic citizenship and digital competencies. The right to education was guaranteed to all minors, regardless of their origin. All minors who did not speak San Marino could participate in language classes at all levels of education. A centre had been set up to recognise foreign diplomas according to European standards.

Questions by Committee Experts

BAKRI SIDIKI DIABY, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked for information on steps taken to facilitate naturalisation for stateless persons. The naturalisation procedure required persons to give up their nationality but did not guarantee San Marino nationality. How did the State party prevent statelessness from arising from this process? Could the State party comment on the adoption of legislation on asylum seekers and refugees in line with international standards?

What measures were in place to combat trafficking for forced labour and sexual exploitation. What reparations were provided to victims and punishments issued to perpetrators of trafficking? Were public officials trained to identify victims of trafficking? How did the State party ensure that victims of trafficking were not prosecuted or deported?

What human rights education was provided by the State party? Did the State party have educational initiatives promoting intercultural understanding and tolerance among San Marino residents?

One Committee Expert asked if the State party had made use of the Committee’s general recommendation 36, which could help the State party to fight racial profiling.

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the State party had been providing residence permits to asylum seekers on humanitarian grounds for years. This system allowed for asylum seekers to access services such as health care. There were currently no records of stateless persons in San Marino. Foreign nationality was removed only after San Marino nationality was granted in the naturalisation process. The Government would consider eliminating the requirement of giving up foreign citizenship when applying for naturalisation.

Magistrates were trained on trafficking crimes and the rights of minorities. There had been no sentences related to the crime of trafficking issued in courts, but the State party was exerting efforts to detect and combat trafficking. It had recently welcomed a delegation of Council of Europe experts on human trafficking to assess anti-trafficking measures in the State. The Criminal Code included provisions on domestic slavery, human trafficking and forced prosecution. Psychological assistance was provided to women and minors who were victims of trafficking. The State party was currently devising a national action plan on trafficking in persons, which included training for public officials and awareness raising campaigns on preventing trafficking.

The gendarmerie had a specific office dealing with foreign citizens that was tasked with investigating cases of trafficking. When cases were identified, authorities immediately worked to provide victims with access to health care, interpretation, shelter and justice. Psychologists and legal assistants participated in all cases involving minors. Training modules on trafficking were provided by the Italian Ministry of Interior.

Every two years, the Department of Education launched a training module for prospective teachers, which addressed discrimination, social inclusion of minors, and the right to citizenship. School managers identified situations where students were at risk of discrimination and ran tailor-made educational initiatives focusing on inclusion.

Follow-Up Questions by Committee Experts

BAKRI SIDIKI DIABY, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said it was good news that the process of removing nationality occurred after granting San Marino nationality. Mr. Diaby encouraged the State party to continue with reforms to cease the removal of nationality in the naturalisation process.

One Committee Expert asked if there were plans to amend article four of the Constitution to address discrimination based on race.

Another Committee Expert asked whether San Marino was a member of the Schengen system. Did the State party’s recruitment process have a geographic and ethnic “blindness”? What measures were in place to address challenges faced by refugees and asylum seekers in obtaining employment?

A Committee Expert asked whether offences of trafficking and racial profiling triggered automatic prosecution by the public prosecutor.

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the State party would study the Committee’s general recommendation 36 in depth. San Marino was not a member of the Schengen treaty, but was surrounded by Italy, a Schengen State, and thus had de-facto Schengen status.

Closing Remarks

MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, thanked the delegation from San Marino for their efforts to answer the Committee’s questions. The dialogue had demonstrated the State party’s willingness to collaborate with the Committee. The authorities needed to strengthen data collection mechanisms and other reforms to implement the Convention. Ms. Tebie thanked all persons who had contributed to conducting the dialogue.

MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Chair, expressed hope that the dialogue would be the start of a long relationship between the Committee and the State party.

MARCELLO BECCARI, Ambassador of San Marino to the United Nations in Geneva and head of the delegation, said that during the dialogue, San Marino had described its legislative and policy measures to implement the provisions of the Convention. Work had not yet finished; there was much remaining to be done. However, the State party had embarked on the process of implementing the Convention and fully defending human rights. It would take careful note of the Committee’s recommendations and exert efforts to address the issues raised in the dialogue.

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media; not an official record.
English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.