COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF YUGOSLAVIA AND TAKES UP REPORT OF ARMENIA

HR/CERD/98/19
12 March 1998


Experts Engage in an Exchange of Views with the High Commissioner for Human Rights

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination concluded consideration this afternoon of the report of Yugoslavia on how the country implements the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

In concluding remarks, Mr. Yuri Rechetov, Committee member from the Russian Federation who served as rapporteur for the report of Yugoslavia, welcomed the efforts made by the Government to re-open the dialogue with the Committee and said this was the positive effect of the Good Offices Mission. When police forces exceeded their authority and used force it was no longer an internal situation and came under the competence of international agencies, he added.

As one of 150 States parties to the Convention, Yugoslavia is required to submit periodic reports to the Committee. Formal observations and recommendations on the situation in the country will be issued towards the end of the Committee's three week session, which concludes 20 March.

Also this afternoon, the Committee began consideration of a report presented by Armenia. Introducing the report, Mr. Ashot Melik-Shahnazarian, Head of the Department of the International Organizations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, said that throughout its history, the Armenian population had frequently been victim of violations of human rights. This developed the Armenians' sense of justice and respect for minorities. To date, refugees made up 12 per cent of the population of Armenia and their needs were addressed in accordance to the relevant international human rights instruments.

Whilst noting that political issues did not fall under the mandate of the Committee, Mr. Luis Valencia Rodriguez, Committee member from Ecuador who served as rapporteur for the report of Armenia, asked for more information on the number and status of Azerbaijanis living in the country. Reports of torture and cruel and degrading treatment still occurring were also of concern, he added.
In the latter part of the afternoon, the panel of experts engaged in an exchange of views with Mrs. Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Committee members said, among other things, that greater recognition should be granted to the high professional ability of this Committee, in particular concerning preventive action. They called on the Office of the High Commissioner to consider ways to use their experience in the framework of preventive diplomacy. In view of the increasing work load of the Committee, a number of experts called for more support to be granted to the Secretariat.

Responding, Mrs. Robinson expressed full support for the work of the human rights treaty bodies and said it was necessary to look constructively at the values and expertise present in these Committees. The Office of the High Commissioner had completed the staff reconstruction and more focused attention would now be given to ways to integrate the work of the Committee in the new structure, she added. Moreover, she expressed support for the preventive and early warning procedures mechanisms and recognized the important role the Committee could play in preventive diplomacy.

The following experts participated in the proceedings this afternoon: Ivan Garvalov (Bulgaria); Régis de Gouttes (France); Peter Nobel (Sweden); Gay Mcdougall (United States); Yuri A. Rechetov (Russian Federation); Shanti Sadiq Ali (India); Agha Shahi (Pakistan); Michael E. Sherifis (Cyprus); Luis Valencia Rodriguez (Ecuador); and Mario Jorge Yutzis (Argentina).
The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, 13 March 1998 to hear the response of the Armenian delegation to questions raised this afternoon.

Discussion of Report of Yugoslavia

Responding to questions raised this morning and yesterday on education and health care, MARGIT SAVOVIC, Chairperson of the Yugoslav Commission for Cooperation with the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and for the Promotion of the Position of Women, said the Albanian minority children who followed the parallel system of education were recognized by the Serbian system. Some 90 per cent of elementary schools and 60 per cent of secondary schools in Kosovo were Albanian, and higher education in the Albanian language was still going on. The agreement under which the Government had approved that all students in the parallel system could have their education recognized and their teachers enrolled in the normal system was never implemented because the Albanian representatives refused to cooperate.

Ms. Savovic said that a large part of the Albanian population was receiving health services free of charge. A lot of health services were carried out with the support of international organisations, including the World Health Organization and UNICEF.

A Committee member asked if the delegation was prepared to authorise free access for the International Committee of the Red Cross and other international organisations to Kosovo. The expert said that cooperation with the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia remained inadequate. There was an international legal obligation to cooperate with the Tribunal which superceded domestic legislation.

MIROSLAV MILOSEVIC, the Charge d'Affaires of the Permanent Mission of Yugoslavia to the United Nations in Geneva, responded to earlier questions and said the ICRC was welcome to Kosovo and Metohija to investigate and assess the situation there. Other international organizations and agencies as well as non-governmental organizations were currently in Belgrade and were free to travel in the country.

In concluding remarks, Committee expert YURI RECHETOV said that when police troops exceeded their authority and used force, it was no longer an internal situation and came under the competence of international agencies. He said the right to self-determination was applicable to national and other minorities and had to be implemented under the acceptable conditions of international law.

The expert said that there was no proof that the Albanians in Kosovo were not allowed to exercise their rights. He expressed concern that the Contact Group in London had not condemned terrorism nor had it given guarantees to the territorial integrity of the country. Subsequently, the representatives of the Albanian minority had insisted on full fledged independence. He said this resembled the situation in 1991 when certain countries were in a rush to grant independence to Republics of the Former Yugoslavia. He welcomed the efforts by the Yugoslav Government to re-open the dialogue with the Committee and praised the positive response of the Government to the Good Offices Mission.

Report of Armenia

The report of Armenia (CERD/C/289/Add.2) states that in 1991 and in the course of the disintegration of the former Soviet Union, the Armenians again recovered their sovereignty and proclaimed the present Republic of Armenia. This decision was confirmed by the results of a national referendum held on 21 September 1991.

An absolute majority - about 94 per cent - of the population of Armenia are native Armenians, the report states. In fact, as a result of being subjected to systematic pogroms and oppression in Western Armenia, then part of the Ottoman empire, and experiencing all the horrors of the genocide which, in 1915 to 1922, led to the death of 1.5 million people, the Armenians became concentrated in Eastern Armenia, then part of Tsarist Russia, where they felt relatively secure. Another part of the Armenian population of Western Armenia dispersed all over the world. The number of Armenians permanently living abroad is today equal to almost twice the population of the present Armenian State.

As a result of the mass pogroms of Armenians in Azerbaijan in 1988 and 1989 and their exodus from that country, 350,000 Armenian refugees lost both their homes and their property. Some 260,000 sought refuge in Armenia. The remaining 90,000 settled in Russia and elsewhere in the world. The population of Armenia further swelled in recent years by 66,000 Armenian refugees from Nagorni Karabakh and 6,000 from Abkhazia.

Following the exodus of the Armenians from Azerbaijan, around 168,000 Azerbaijanis who lived in Armenia gradually returned to their own country. Of those who chose to leave, 144,000 sold or exchanged their homes in Armenia, and the rest received $110 million in compensation from the Armenian Government. The report stresses that the bitter historical experience of the Armenians, repeatedly subjected in the course of their history to oppression, murder and genocide, has bred in them a keen feeling of respect for national minorities.

This is clear from the example of the Kurds who for many decades have made up a more or less stable 1.7 per cent of the population. As distinct from their many compatriots living in neighbouring countries, the Kurds of Armenia have always enjoyed very broad rights which even now are not available to the Kurdish people in their other countries of abode. The Kurdish language is taught in Armenian schools in the areas settled by the Kurds. There is a Kurdish department in one of Armenia's universities. The Kurds have their own scientific institutions and Kurdish-language newspapers, radio and television.

Twelve different communities, social organizations and national minorities live in Armenia under the single Union of Nationalities which was created in 1994 to solve the educational, cultural, economic, social and other problems of the national minorities. The membership of Armenia's Union of Nationalities consists of the Assyrian, Greek, Georgian, Jewish, German and Polish communities, together with the League of Kurdish Intelligentsia, the Russian Compatriots and the charity Ukraine.

The Government of the Republic of Armenia pursues a policy of prohibiting all acts or manifestations of racial discrimination directed against individuals, groups or institutions. The Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, adopted on 5 July 1995, includes special provisions intended to exclude racial discrimination, eliminate all its manifestations, and foster respect for the cultural, linguistic and other traditions of national minorities.

Introduction of Report of Armenia

ASHOT MELIK-SHAHNAZARIAN, Head of the Department of the International Organizations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, said that following accession to independence Armenia had faced a number of economic and political difficulties and was not able to guarantee all fundamental rights, even the right to life. These difficulties, however, were felt by all persons irrespective of national or ethnic origin. During the first years of independence the lack of constitutional and legislative provisions as well as the lack of administrative bodies to protect human rights created problems.

Mr. Melik-Shahnazarian said the situation of human rights was similar to that found in a number of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Armenia, however, had avoided the major cataclysm and was described by some as an island of stability in the area. This was largely due to the particularities of the mentalities of Armenian citizens. The organization of presidential elections, to be held on 16 March of this year with the support of a number of international observers, marked a new step by the Armenian people towards a democratic process.

Throughout their history, the Armenian population had frequently been victim of violations of human rights. This developed Armenians' sense of justice and respect for minorities. Mr. Melik-Shahnazarian stressed that Armenia was one of the first CIS countries to accede to international human rights instruments. Important efforts were carried out by the Government to disseminate the provisions of the human rights instruments to which it was a party. Armenia carried out seminars and published manuals on human rights issues.

Armenia registered and catered for the needs of all refugees and internally displaced persons according to the relevant international instruments. There were, for example, 350,000 refugees from Azerbaijan and 66,000 from Nagorni Karabach. Currently 12 per cent of the population were refugees and displaced persons. The situation of minorities was highly positive and problems faced by them were dealt with by the Union of Nationalities. In 1998 Armenia would be completing the reform of the administrative and legal system and adopting new legislation. The draft Penal Code should be adopted in November of this year.

Discussion of the Report

Leading the discussion on the report of Armenia, Committee member LUIS VALENCIA RODRIGUEZ said the Committee was not able to comment on the political crisis between Armenia and neighbouring States as this did not fall under its competence. Some of the demographic data in the report seemed to be contradictory and there were certain discrepancies between various statistics on minorities. Clarifications were necessary on the number of Azerbaijanis living in Armenia and on the treatment of this minority as there were reports of discriminatory treatment against them. More information on what was done by the Union of Nationalities was also welcomed.

Concerning the CIS agreement on questions relating to the restoration of the rights of deported persons, national minorities and peoples, and the Convention on the safeguarding of the rights of members of national minorities, Mr. Rodriguez asked for more information on how these treaties were applied and on the status of such persons. Moreover, further information was needed on measures adopted to ensure these persons were not discriminated against.

Mr. Rodriuez noted that the provisions requiring the punishment for acts of propaganda or agitation to incite to racial or national enmity or dissention were not fully in accordance with article 4 of the Convention. He drew attention to the need to bring legal provisions more in line with the provisions of the Convention.

On article 5, he asked how the provisions were applied in practice. He expressed concern that it seemed that cases of torture and cruel and degrading treatment still occurred. Law enforcement and judicial officers should receive human rights training and lectures on the provisions of the Convention.

The expert asked if minorities were also able to participate in referendum. He also questioned the right to citizenship and said that Armenia did not seem to accept dual nationality.

Mr. Rodriguez welcomed the national reform on education and suggested that the Government allow national minorities and refugees to be educated in their national languages. He recommended that the Government begin to maintain statistics on racially motivated crimes. He also expressed interest in radical reforms being carried out in the judicial system. He said that the report referred to a number of draft laws and asked to have copies of these laws when these were adopted.

Other Committee members said the initial report of Armenia presented a full and interesting picture of the situation in the country. Experts asked for more information, on among other things, the role and work of the Union of National Minorities and that of the Human Rights Commission which was established under the Charter of the CIS and was responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Convention. More information was also requested on the effectiveness of the project carried out between the Armenian Government and the Human Rights Centre in Geneva, with a view to organizing seminars, train specialists and disseminate human right literature.

A number of members called for the adoption by Armenia of a system to record racially motivated crimes. Mention was also made of the fact that citizens of foreign countries could not join socio-political organizations and they asked whether this was in accordance with provisions of the Convention.

One expert asked whether the Government of Armenia intended to recognize the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals or groups of individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by that State Party of any of the rights set forth in the Convention. There was some discrepancy in the information provided on the need for the various religious organisations to register, one member added.

Discussion with the High Commissioner for Human Rights

MARY ROBINSON, The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, welcomed this opportunity to meet with the members of the Committee and listen to their concerns. It would be interesting to have the insight of experts on their reporting system and the problems faced by the Committee.

A number of Committee members took the floor this afternoon to encourage Mrs. Robinson in her numerous endeavours and voice their concerns. They said that much was being done within the Committee to ensure greater efficiency and to monitor the Convention more effectively. They mentioned the adoption in 1973 of the emergency and early warning procedures mechanism, the adoption in 1991 of the automatic review of States with reports seriously overdue, and the measures undertaken to liaise with international and regional bodies which also dealt with issues of racial discrimination. Although, these procedures proved to be very efficient, certain States and Committees had expressed certain reservations and the experts called on the support of the High Commissioner in this regard. In particular they expressed the hope that the Committee could avail itself of the services of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in its endeavours to liaise with other bodies.

A number of experts expressed their appreciation for the hard work provided by the Secretariat. In view of the increasing work load of the Committee, however, it was necessary to increase the support given by the Secretariat. One expert expressed regret at the fact that the Chief of Unit had to divide her time between all the treaty bodies, the acting Secretary of the Committee changed often, as did the system of interns assisting the Committee in its work. Experts pointed to the need to hold one of the Committee's sessions in New York to, among other things, consider reports of small States parties not represented in Geneva and with limited funds. One expert said it would be useful for concluding observations and recommendations of the Committee to be considered by the Office of the Human Rights Centre.

Committee members called on Mrs. Robinson to support the Committee in its efforts to disseminate and publicise the principles and provisions of the Convention and ensure its universal ratification. An expert pointed to the increasing politicization of human rights issues and said the States should be rated according to the efforts made to ensure the protection of human rights in all spheres.

A number of experts underlined the important experience the Committee had acquired over the years with regard to racial discrimination. It had gradually edged up in terms of efficiency and was able to go into more depth on certain issues, in particular on the spreading problem of inter-ethnic conflict. One expert recommended the establishment of permanent missions to high tension areas. Greater recognition should be granted to the high professional ability of this Committee, in particular concerning preventive action. It had, on a number of occasions, been the first organ to sound a warning of alarm in areas threatened by grave ethnic conflicts. The Office of the High Commissioner should consider ways to use this experience in the framework of preventive diplomacy.

One member asked for information on the establishment of a rapid reaction force under which between 5,000 to 10,000 soldiers could be deployed to sensitive areas as a preventive measure. In too many cases early warning signals had not been heeded and action had been taken too late.
One expert suggested that a conference of all treaty bodies be convened to discuss problems and assess their effectiveness . These matters should not be left to outsiders or independent individuals, others added. Another expert said the Committee should play a central role in the World Conference Against Racism, to be convened by the end of the year 2001, and asked for more information in this regard.

Mrs. Robinson thanked the members for their supportive remarks and said the comments had made helped her understand the work carried out by the Committee and the commitment of its members. She expressed full support for the work of the treaty bodies and said it was necessary to look constructively at the values and expertise present in these Committees. It had been suggested that the Commission on Human Rights looked at the role of the treaty bodies and she said that this could be a welcome focus and could draw wider attention to the work and expertise gathered in treaty bodies.

The Office of the High Commissioner had completed the staff restructuring and more focused attention would now be given to ways to integrate the work of the Committee. She expressed much support for the preventive and early warning procedures mechanisms. Racial discrimination and ethnic conflicts were unfortunately not being overcome. These problems were very serious and needed to be addressed by the Committee after it had acquired much experience over the years.