COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONCLUDES DEBATE ON FIJI'S EFFORTS TO FIGHT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

CERD
62nd session
12 March 2003
Morning



Hears Briefing by Chief of Support Service Branch of OHCHR



The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning concluded its consideration of the sixth to fourteenth periodic reports of Fiji after hearing a Government delegation affirm that the identities of each racial community was respected by the authorities.
The members of the Fijian delegation said, among other things, that the Government respected the identities of each racial community and would continue to promote racial harmony. The Fijian Constitution provided for affirmative action to redress some of the disparities that might exist in the society involving certain communities, the delegation added.
Committee Expert Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill, who served as country rapporteur to the reports of Fiji, said that redressing the past legacies of colonialism was a hard struggle that Fiji faced at present. She said the affirmative action was a positive measure and did not contradict any of the provisions of the Convention. The Government had also laid out social and development plans. However, how could the Fijian Government ensure that its implementation of the development plan and promotion of a national identity would bring Fijians together rather than divide them. The current perception was that the Government was not paying enough attention to the issue of reconciling different Fijian populations, on the contrary, it was fuelling disharmony by focusing on the indigenous Fijians only, which was a concern to the Committee, she said.
Also taking part in the debate were Committee Experts Agha Shahi, Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr, Regis de Gouttes, Ion Diaconu, Kurt Herndl, Mario Jorge Yuzis and Alexandre Sicilianos.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations and recommendations on the reports of Fiji towards the end of its three-week session, which will close on 21 March.
As one of the 167 States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, Fiji is obligated to submit periodic reports on its efforts to fight racial discrimination.
Also this morning the Committee was briefed by Maria-Francisca Ize Charrin, Chief of the Support Service Branch of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), on the reform of the treaty body system. She told the members that the idea of submitting a consolidated report by States parties to all treaty bodies would not marginalize the issue of racial discrimination. It was to improve the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee at the national level and to strengthen the functioning of the human rights mechanisms, she added.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it is scheduled to take up the fifth to fourteenth periodic reports of Cote d'Ivoire (CERD/C/382/Add.2).

Response of Fiji
The members of the delegation of Fiji responded to the numerous questions raised in the previous meeting and this morning. They said, among other things, that the Government respected the identities of each racial community and would continue to promote racial harmony.
The delegation said that 87 per cent of land in Fiji was owned by its original inhabitants. Some pieces of land were leased to other members of the community. The fact that native land was not sold or exchanged did not cause any problem because concessions were granted by the indigenous owners to other persons for commercial or other purposes. The Native Land Trust Board was engaged in managing indigenous lands and extending the lease system in order to further profit the owners.
The Fijian Constitution provided for affirmative action to redress some of the disparities that might exist in the society involving certain communities, the delegation said. The main reason why citizens left the country was to look for better living conditions and not because of the practice of affirmative action. Citizens with special skills were attracted by the opportunities they were offered by enterprises based abroad. The Government was not against the right to freedom of movement of its citizens.
The delegation said that the Human Rights Commission complied with the Paris Principles relating to the status and functions of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights. Funds were available from donors to the Commission to carry out its activities.
Concerning the implementation of article 4 of the Convention, the delegation said that as long as the provision did not affect the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, the Government could adopt laws in light of article 4. Article 4 required State parties to condemn all propaganda and all organizations which were based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race over the other.
Reacting to some of the answers provided by the delegation, some Committee members said that the Government should declare illegal and prohibit organizations which promoted and incited racial discrimination.
The delegation said there were no discriminatory measures affecting the entry of children in any school in Fiji. Indigenous students could attend either public or private schools. The issue of segregation in the school system was strange to Fiji. The Fijian society was multi-ethnic and it was difficult to practice any form of segregation.
An Expert reacted to the delegation's statement on the Fijian school system by saying that the State had made reservations on article 3 of the Convention which stipulated that "States parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction".
Asked about the high rate of suicide, the delegation said that the cause of suicide could be attributed to domestic problems, lack of academic progress or lack of human relations among the youth. According to available information, Indo-Fijians were more likely to commit suicide than the indigenous population.
PATRICIA NOZIPHO JANUARY-BARDILL, the Committee Expert who served as country rapporteur to the reports of Fiji, said that she was satisfied by the response provided by the delegation. Redressing the past legacies of colonialism was a hard struggle which Fiji faced at present.
Ms. January-Bardill said that affirmative action was a positive measure and did not contradict with any of the provisions of the Convention. The Government had laid down social and development plans; and the Committee was encouraged by Fiji's ambitious 20 year development plan and its 2 year strategic development plan.
There was always room for racial reconciliation involving institutional measures, Ms. January-Bardill said. The Government should entrench in its development plans racial harmony. The concept of national unity should also be entrenched in any development plan, without which sustainability might not be attained.
The Expert asked how the Fijian Government could ensure that in its implementation of the development plan, it would promote a national identity that would bring Fijians together rather than divide them. The current perception was that the Government was not paying enough attention to the issue of reconciling different Fijian populations; on the contrary, it was fuelling disharmony by focusing on the indigenous Fijians only. That issue was of concern to the Committee.

Briefing by Representative of OHCHR
MARIA-FRANCISCA IZE CHARRIN, Chief of the Support Service Branch of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the Office had requested each Committee to provide its opinion on the process of reform contained in the report submitted by the Secretary-General entitled "Strengthening of the United Nations: an agenda for further change". The Commission of Human Rights, which was opening on Monday, would discuss the issue of the effective functioning of the human rights mechanisms contained in document E/CN.4/2003/126.
Ms. Ize Charrin said that, in that regard, the Office was preparing a document reflecting the studies carried out by a number of experts in the area. In September 2003, the High Commissioner for Human Rights should present his own report to the Secretary-General concerning the reform of treaty bodies, including the submission of a single report by States parties to the different committees.
She said that in May this year, there would be a "brainstorming" meeting organized by the Office in which the representatives of the six treaty bodies would be present, as well as representatives of national institutions for human rights. Experts and other representatives would exchange views on the basis of the document prepared by the Office.
Ms. Ize Charrin assured the Experts that nothing could be done without the consent of the Committee regarding the reform of the treaty bodies. Thus, the Committee should take this opportunity to make its opinion heard on the issue. She stressed that the idea of a consolidated report by States parties would not marginalize the issue of racial discrimination. It was to improve the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee at the national level and to strengthen the functioning of the human rights mechanisms.
The Office had created a unit which would deal with follow-up to the recommendations of the treaty bodies, Ms. Ize Charrin said. The first workshop on follow-up would be held in Quito, Ecuador, with the participation of States parties. Also this year, a workshop would be organized in Damascus, Syria, on the follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Ms. Ize Charrin said that the Office continued to support the Committee's early warning and urgent procedures. It should also consider situations in countries that had never submitted reports to the Committee. Such States parties might need advisory services and technical assistance to enable them to compile their reports.
Following Ms. Ize Charrin's briefing, some Experts said that keeping the specificity of each Committee, such as the CERD and the Committee against Torture, for example, should be given attention in the process of treaty body reforms. The process should not weaken or marginalize the essence of the fight against racial discrimination of the Committee. Preliminary studies should be carried out in the face of the challenge relating to the reform.
The following Committee Experts took the floor after the briefing: Regis de Gouttes, Alexandre Sicilianos, Nourredine Amir, Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr, Kurt Herndl, Mohamed Aly Thiam,
Tang Chenyguan and Mario Jorge Yutzis.



* *** *