COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS PERIODIC REPORTS FROM LATVIA

Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination
63rd session
14 August 2003






Committee Calls on Israel to Revoke Nationality
and Entry into Israel Law;
Appeals to States Parties to Adopt Amendments to Article 8




The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has concluded its review of the fourth and fifth periodic reports of Latvia on how that country implements the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Committee also adopted a decision in which it called on Israel to revoke the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) in order to facilitate family unification on a non-discriminatory basis.

Introducing the reports of Latvia, Janis Karklins, Permanent Representative of Latvia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that everything that would be discussed during the meetings and all policies of the Latvian Government derived from the recent past of that country, which was that Latvia had been occupied for 50 years. Today, Latvia was trying to overcome the heritage of that occupation, and the discussion should be considered in that light. During the Soviet times, the Soviet-led Government held resettlement policies in Latvia, importing people and introducing uncharacteristic industries. The composition of the Latvian people was therefore distorted, to the point of almost becoming a national minority themselves. All efforts of the Latvian Government since 1991 were targeted towards overcoming this difficult legacy and to allow all inhabitants of Latvia to live in the best possible way.

Committee Experts including Morten Kjaerum, the group’s country Rapporteur for the reports of Latvia, raised a series of questions, including on whether judges, as well as law enforcement authorities received sufficient training on article 4 of the International Convention; what action was taken with regard to official complaints received related to racial discrimination; discretions in the matter of education given to public officials and whether minority input would be heard in this context; the absence of an explicit definition of racial discrimination in the Criminal Code; the absence of any complaint of acts of racial discrimination; and the nature of penalties that might be imposed.

Taking part in the debate, which was held over two meetings, were Committee Experts Luis Valencia Rodriguez, Patrick Thornberry, Régis de Gouttes, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, Mario Jorge Yutzis, Chengyuan Thang, Marc Bossuyt, Ion Dionescu (Chairman speaking as Expert), Agha Shahi, Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr, and Alexei S. Avtonomov.

The final conclusions and recommendations on the report of Latvia will be issued towards the end of the session, which concludes on 22 August. In preliminary remarks, Mr. Kjaerum said the frank and open dialogue had been most appreciated by the Committee, and the answers had been specific and clear, helping to understand the situation and the issues better. The delegation was thanked for the constructive contribution to the examination of the situation in the country, and there was admiration for the achievements of the Latvian people in reaching this stage of human rights compliance and an open democratic society in a short span of time.

In concluding remarks, Nils Muiznieks, Minister of Social Integration of Latvia and the Head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to explain the policy and changes which had occurred in the country over the last years. The Government of Latvia was appreciative and was committed to moving forward to further fulfilling its implementation of its international commitments.

Members of the delegation included Kristine Malinovska, Counselor of the Permanent Mission of Latvia; Juris Pekalis, Head of Human Rights Policy Division, Department of International Organizations and Human Rights Policy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; S. Viba, Head of the Legal Section of the Naturalisation Office; I. Juhansone, Deputy Head of the Department of Citizenship and Migration; E. Papule, Head of Division of Integration, Department of General Education at the Ministry of Education and Science; A. Priedite, Director of Management Unity, Latvian Language Training Program; M. Logins, Legal Counselor of the Legal Section, European and Legal Affairs Department at the Ministry of Welfare; and Maris Ozolins, Attaché of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

As one of the 169 States parties to the International Convention, Latvia must present periodic reports to the Committee on efforts to eradicate racial discrimination.

Also this morning, in the context of a request made by Committee Expert Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr during the current session, the Committee held a debate on the issue of Israel’s Temporary Suspension Order of May 2002, enacted into law as the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) on 31 July 2003.

The Committee adopted a decision in which it expressed concern about the law, noting that the Suspension Order of May 2002 had already adversely affected many families and marriages. The Committee urged Israel to revoke this ban and reconsider its policy with a view to facilitating family unification on a non-discriminatory basis. It should provide detailed information on this issue in its next periodic report.

Committee Experts Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr, Marc Bossuyt, Patrick Thornberry, Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai, Morten Kjaerum, Régis de Gouttes, Mario Jorge Yutzis, and Kurt Herndl participated in the debate which concluded in the adoption by consensus of the amended decision.

On another subject, the Committee adopted a proposal urgently appealing to States parties to the International Convention to ratify the amendment to article 8 of the International Convention so that the financing of the expenses of the Committee Experts could be paid out of the regular United Nations budget.


When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will begin its consideration of the sixteenth periodic report of Finland (CERD/C/409/Add.2).


Reports of Latvia

The fourth and fifth periodic reports of Latvia, contained in document (CERD/C/426/Add.2), describe progress in the field of human rights and in particular in the fight against racial discrimination. The implementation of articles 2 to 7 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination are discussed in detail.

Article 89 of the Constitution of Latvia provides that “the State recognizes and protects basic human rights in accordance with this Constitution, the laws and international agreements binding to Latvia”. Furthermore, article 91 includes both the principle of non-discrimination and the principle of equality. The inhabitants of the Republic of Latvia are guaranteed, regardless of their nationality, equal human rights which correspond to international standards, and any activity directed towards national discrimination or the propagation of national superiority or national hatred is punishable in accordance with existing laws. Human rights are protected on a Constitutional level.

Apartheid does not exist in Latvia. There are no legal acts providing for segregation in any form. Quite the opposite, article 78 of the Criminal Law provides for liability for acts which are directly aimed at causing national or racial hatred or discord. The equality of all residents of Latvia before the courts is guaranteed by the legal acts in effect in Latvia, which provide for both the non-discrimination principle and the principle of equality.


Introduction of Reports

JANIS KARKLINS, Permanent Representative of Latvia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the present report was the first after a new mechanism for drafting had been put in place. Unfortunately, the search for this mechanism had delayed the production of the report, and had required the creation of a new office in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Latvia had been able to practically eliminate the reporting backlog, and only one report was currently pending. Latvia had devoted considerable efforts to strengthening its reporting mechanism and fulfill its obligations so that it could engage in a constructive dialogue with all treaty bodies. Everything that would be discussed during the meetings, all policies of the Latvian Government, derived from the recent past of that country, which was that Latvia had been occupied for 50 years. Today, Latvia was trying to overcome the heritage of that occupation, and the discussion should be considered in that light. During the Soviet times, the Soviet-led Government held resettlement policies in Latvia, importing people and introducing uncharacteristic industries. The composition of the Latvian people was therefore distorted, to the point of almost becoming a national minority themselves. Soviet-led Governments had had a segregation policy in education, to the point where the Latvian language almost became extinct. All efforts of the Latvian Government since 1991 were targeted towards overcoming this difficult legacy and to allow all the inhabitants of Latvia to live in the best possible way.

NILS MUIZNIEKS, Minister for Social Integration of Latvia and the Head of the delegation, introducing the report, said it was a great honour to represent Latvia before the Committee. The report provided information on follow-up on the previous recommendations of the Committee, and covered the period of 1998 to 2002, during which period Latvia had experienced enormous political change. In 1998, a referendum on liberalizing the citizenship law had been held, following which all who wished to could apply for citizenship. Other measures followed on this topic and related issues, for example naturalization. The current Government was concerned about the low number of applications for citizenship. It was hoped that European Union membership would prove to be a stimulus, as would the move towards a professional army, thus removing obligatory military service.

In 1999 and 2000, there was adoption of a State language law and implementing regulations, following intense consultations with the European Union, the OSCE and the Council of Europe, regulating language use in the private sector only if there was a legitimate public interest, and the OSCE judged this to be essentially in conformity with Latvia’s international obligations. This period also saw intensified efforts to overcome the Soviet legacy of segregation in the education system and to guarantee the competitiveness of minority youth.

1998 saw the adoption of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, with a provision outlawing discrimination. Subsequently, the Labour Law with strong anti-discriminatory provisions, and the abolition of obligatory ethnicity entry in passports had been adopted. There was no day-to-day segregation in social life, except for education where some schools still taught only in Russian. Mixed workplaces were the norm, as were mixed marriages and inter-personal relationships. Extremist racist groups had been prosecuted successfully.

Since 2002, there had been an acceleration of social and economic change, as evidenced by the creation of the post of the Minister speaking, who was charged with coordinating anti-discrimination policy, minorities, and social integration policies. The Government had taken a pragmatic approach to education reform, by ensuring that minority languages were taught in schools, and this was enshrined in legislation. This was a very difficult issue, since there was a deeply engrained sense of entitlement, and many in the minority community were opposed in principle to any change. But this was in line with international human rights standards, and had been recognized as so by the OSCE.

First steps had been taken towards the creation of a National Action Plan against Intolerance and Discrimination; data, research and information had been compiled, and a conference held. Consultations continued, and it was hoped that Latvia would become a model for the region. A constructive dialogue with the Committee was hoped for.


Discussion

MORTEN KJAERUM, the Committee Expert who served as country rapporteur for the reports of Latvia, said he welcomed the thorough and comprehensive reports and was pleased to see that the reports contained information asked for by the Committee as well as information on achievements in the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations. Four years had passed since Latvia had appeared before the Committee for the first time, and since then political and economic reform had continued; simultaneously, a number of positive steps had been taken to address issues of racism and racial discrimination. The introduction of a human rights chapter in the Constitution was highlighted. Further, a new Labour Law adopted in June 2001 had provided for equal rights to employment and to fair, safe and healthy working conditions and fair pay without direct or indirect discrimination. However, despite positive developments, there were still issues of concern to the Committee, and issues on which it appreciated receiving further clarification.

No legal acts provided for segregation, however, a condition of racial segregation could arise without any initiative or direct involvement by the public authorities. States had been invited to monitor all trends which could give rise to racial segregation, and there was a need for further information on this issue. Criminal Law did not contain explicit reference to incitement of ethnic or racial discord, or humiliation of an ethnic group. The Government needed to clarify this issue. Case law was still very limited, and there was a need for further information on the issue as to whether judges, as well as law enforcement authorities received sufficient training on article 4 of the International Convention.

Latvian legislation provided for the possibility to ban organizations, which, among other things, preached racial or national hatred, although no organization had yet been suspended or terminated on this basis. Information was that there were such organizations in Latvia, and the Government needed to deal with this issue and clarify how they would do so. Latvia did not have a comprehensive body of anti-discrimination legislation, and it was assumed that this would be elaborated when implementing European Union race directives.

Significant progress had been made with regard to the acquisition of Latvian citizenship, however, problems reportedly remained concerning the Russian-speaking population, a large part of which were non-citizens, and significant differences in the rights of citizens and non-citizens reportedly still existed, for example in the case of political rights, economic, social and cultural rights, and the rights to work and to social security and social services. The Roma also appeared to suffer from negative stereotyping and from a generally disadvantaged situation.

It seemed that asylum seekers and illegal immigrants who could not be deported still risked detention for indefinite periods of time, and suffered discrimination particularly with regard to housing. Some progress had been made in implementing the National Programme for Social Integration, one of the purposes of which was to coordinate existing efforts aimed at the integration of society in different areas such as Latvian language training, naturalization, and education. However, he asked, was human rights education, particularly education on racial discrimination and the International Convention, as well as education promoting respect for diversity, carried out.

The Rapporteur concluded by expressing his deep admiration for the democratic development in Latvia, for in a very short period of time, the people of Latvia had obtained impressive results.

Other members of the Committee also raised questions and issues. They asked, among other things, what action was taken with regard to official complaints received related to racial discrimination; cases where State police had allegedly violated human rights and what was done by the Government in this regard; whether foreigners could join trade unions on the same basis as Latvian citizens; discretions in the matter of education given to public officials and whether minority input would be heard in this context; the absence of an explicit definition of racial discrimination in the Criminal Code and its restriction to concrete actions, which was not defined in the International Convention; the absence of any complaint of acts of racial discrimination and the nature of penalties that might be imposed; prosecutions linked to genocide and why this term was used; the persistence of attitudes despite policies to the contrary with regard to the “Latviaisaition” of education; whether the Government would consider ratifying the optional article under article 14; the granting of voting rights to non-Latvians who had been born in the country and lived there all their life; professions closed to non-citizens; the need for disaggregated data in order to determine compliance in statistical terms with the International Convention; the nature of courses training the judiciary on racial discrimination issues, in particular whether multi-cultural aspects appeared on the curriculum of these courses; and legislative aspects related to naturalization.

The information on the naturalisation processes was welcomed, and members of the Committee noted that the suggestions previously made had been taken into consideration in this regard. Latvia’s considerable progress in many areas including human rights since regaining its independence and reintegration into the United Nations was also noted and applauded.

Responding to these questions and others, JANIS KARKLINS, Permanent Representative of Latvia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said he wished to express the delegation’s appreciation for the fruitful and useful discussion that was held, and careful notes had been taken on all the comments and suggestions made by the members of the Committee. It had been stated that for centuries Latvia had been a multi-ethnic country, and before the Second World War about one sixth of the population belonged to national minorities. During occupation, the national balance was distorted, and many people of different ethnicities were brought to Latvia. After this ended, in order to emphasize the continuity of the State, the Parliament reinstated the 1922 Constitution of Latvia. Citizenship Law envisaged the automatic granting of citizenship to all those whose ancestors were citizens before occupation. Thus, 40 percent of Russians living in the country acquired citizenship automatically.

The legal status of former USSR citizens who were not citizens in another country was covered under the adoption of a specific law, which allowed them an identity document, full protection by Latvia when traveling abroad, and residence permits were granted by law. These people were thus not stateless as defined in the 1954 Geneva Convention on Stateless Persons. According to the population register on 1 July 2003, the country’s population was made up of Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Belarussians, Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, and others, who constituted the citizens, non-citizens, aliens and stateless persons of the country. Ethnicity had never been a criterion for gaining citizenship in Latvia, even though non-citizens were a large proportion of the population, but work was being done to improve the process of naturalization.

Other members of the delegation then addressed the topic of naturalization further, giving details of the legislative and proactive measures taken to sustain this process. Latvia had taken into account the recommendations of international organizations involved with upholding human rights, which had recognized that citizenship laws corresponded to democratic principles of human rights. After the coming into effect of the citizenship law, all non-citizens holding a residence permit became eligible to apply, and all permanent inhabitants could become citizens in order to fully participate in Latvian society. Restrictions on naturalization included showing evidence of fascist political orientation, and were not based on ethnicity and profession. The procedure took no more than three to six months. More than 64,000 applications had been received since independence, and more than 64,000 people now had Latvian citizenship. A requirement for nationality was a basic knowledge of the language, history, Constitution and national anthem of the country. Taking into account current developments, the Naturalization Board had suggested changes to the rules and process to the Cabinet of Ministers, which was reviewing these.

The delegation then moved on to address the issue of difference of status between citizens and non-citizens, and noted that the Government preferred citizens to non-citizens who had many rights. Political rights and opportunities to work for the State administration were reserved for citizens alone, for example. Granting non-citizens the right to vote was not on the agenda, since it was thought this might reduce the already weak reasons to naturalize. Restrictions on the labour market for non-citizens in the private sector were linked for example to security issues, and the judiciary.

The Latvian language was under threat at the beginning of independence, but was now merely in a weak position, which was linked to the lack of language proficiency among many minorities, urban demography, and the linguistic behaviour of Latvians themselves, which was in its turn was linked to unequal Soviet policies with regard to bilingualism, where Latvians spoke Latvian and Russian, but Russians were only monolingual. There was no other country where a minority language was so widespread, and this explained the need to improve the situation of Latvian. Soviet policies of emigration and deportation also proved to be a factor. Latvian language policy was in line with the International Convention in the context of these factors, since measures did not preclude a general integration policy. The language law was aimed at promoting and protecting the Latvian language, while setting severe limits to State interference in private life, especially that of national minorities. Limits were only imposed when it was in the public interest to do so.

With regard to education and educational reform, the delegation said the idea and policy behind reform was that in 1991 when Latvia became independent, it inherited 2 school systems, a Latvian and a Russian one, with different contents and languages. The Russian system also included other national minorities. The new political system demanded a new unified and democratic education system, which ensured the knowledge of Latvian and where relevant a minority language and culture, which ensured equal rights on the labour market and promoted social democracy and development. A demand for Polish and Ukrainian minority education came first, followed by others. Reform included the removal from the curriculum of Soviet symbology, history, philosophy and information. Latvian schools had also included this but a hidden resistance to these issues had continued throughout occupation. Latvia wished to become a western democracy, and therefore the education system, as one of the most important instruments in this regard was recognized as vital for the process of change. Certain subjects were gradually introduced and taught in Latvian in minority schools in order to improve education. Reform was introduced step by step from 1995, with a corresponding interim period and with a significant amount of flexibility. From the very beginning, minority representatives were included in all performance and planning activities. Surveys showed evidence of widespread approval for educational reform.

Many rights were covered by the general principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution, and thus many non-citizens enjoyed the same rights and privileges as citizens did, including rights to healthy and safe working conditions, prohibition of victimization, and the shifting of the burden of proof in cases of discrimination. However, currently, there were draft amendments in progress to bring Labour law into agreement with European Union directives, namely amendments in the deficient of indirect discrimination. Despite comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, there was no influx to the courts of cases of discrimination. This could be explained by the fact that the new law had only come into effect a year ago. Information and procedural data was also provided to employers on how to avoid instances of discrimination and how to react in case such an event should happen. Regulations with regard to social insurance applied to citizens, non-citizens and foreigners, stipulating they had made contributions towards this. Ethnicity did not appear to be specifically relevant with regard to poverty; rather it was a geographical or regional issue. Every employee, notwithstanding ethnicity, was allowed to join a trades union.

Important legislative and administrative changes would take place once the European Union directive on elimination of racial discrimination was implemented. The report recognized that the debate on the definition of this concept was ongoing, and it was hoped that the next report would include the results of this debate. The Constitution contained both non-discrimination and equality causes, and that the State would enforce and protect human rights. Human rights provisions of the Latvian Constitution had to be interpreted along the lines of International human rights agreements, and the courts had recognized this. All people had equal protection before the law and in the Courts. The declaration under article 14 was also under debate. Complaints procedures and the rights to compensation were also a topic addressed, and it was noted that there had been no complaints in 2001 on racial discrimination, and oral consultations had been provided twice in 2002. This low number was due to several reasons. Latvia also saw investigation of the crimes of genocide, particularly in the context of atrocities carried out on Latvian soil during the Second World War, as part of its international duties. Details on procedures for asylum seekers and refugees were also given.

Concluding, the delegation said regarding extremist groups in Latvia, their presence was weak, and they were not represented in Parliament or municipal government. No group had a membership of more than 100 people. Latvia was not immune to this threat, but the scope was not great. Latvian police was unique in that minorities were over-represented, and this was a result of Soviet policies that had not yet been remedied, and all police members were trained in racial issues. With regard to immigration policy, this was done in concert with minorities, who were also involved at many levels of decision. Projects had been implemented that empowered minorities at many levels. The approach of the Government was not just to strengthen the role of Latvian language and culture, but to support the development of minority languages and culture, and did not see any contradiction in this attitude.

Committee Experts then asked further questions and made further comments, for example querying the length of the transitional period of the educational reform; and decisions of the Constitutional Court of Latvia.

Committee Experts also expressed their positive impression of the delegation’s responses and applauded the work done. The efforts made to re-establish the language and culture of Latvia were considered as impressive considering the long occupation of the country, and the work of the Government was commended.


Preliminary Remarks

In preliminary remarks, Mr. KJAERUM, who served as rapporteur to the reports of Latvia, said the frank and open dialogue had been most appreciated by the Committee, and the answers had been specific and clear, helping to understand the situation and the issues better. Broader conceptual issues had also been tabled, which were important when understanding how the International Convention should be applied. The goal was clear, as it was stated, a society where most people if not all were Latvian citizens, and the acceptance of a multi-ethnic society. To achieve this goal, there were a number of different mechanisms, mainly the whip and the carrot, and the issue of political rights for non-citizens illustrated that dilemma perfectly. The important thing was to keep the discussion open, and that was clearly the case. Legislative changes should not be dwelled upon, since European Union directives would continue these changes. Cooperation and participation were stressed, and Latvia was commended for putting this in focus. The delegation was thanked for the constructive contribution to the examination of the country, and there was admiration for the achievements of the Latvian people in reaching this stage of human rights compliance and an open democratic society in a short span of time.


Concluding Remarks by Delegation

In concluding remarks, Nils MuizniEks, Minister of Social Integration of the Republic of Latvia and the Head of the delegation, said he thanked the Committee for the opportunity to explain the policy and changes which had occurred in Latvia over the last years, and thanked Mr. Kjaerum, whose questions were pointed and his comments constructive, thus making the work of the delegation easier, as had other members of the Committee. The Government of Latvia was appreciative and was committed to moving forward to further fulfilling its implementation of its international commitments.


Decision on Israeli Law

In decision 2 (63) (CERD/C/63/Misc.11 Rev.1), adopted by consensus, the Committee said it was concerned about Israel’s Temporary Suspension Order of May 2002, enacted into law as the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) on 31 July 2003, which suspended for a renewable one-year period, the possibility of family reunification, subject to limited and discretionary exceptions, in the cases of marriages between an Israeli citizen and a person residing in the West Bank or Gaza. The Committee noted with concern that the Suspension Order of May 2002 had already adversely affected many families and marriages.

The Committee said that the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) raised serious issues under the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. The State party should revoke this ban and reconsider its policy with a view to facilitating family unification on a non-discriminatory basis. It should provide detailed information on this issue in its next periodic report.


Discussion

MAHMOUD ABOUL-NASR, Committee Expert, said the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories was very well known to all members of the Committee, and the various violations were known, such as the refusal of Israel to allow Palestinians the right of return, destructions of homes, arbitrary imprisonment, the building of the Wall of Shame, and others. These violations had been condemned by the world at large, from all different geographical areas and attitudes, even the United States. Some of the members of the Committee wished to limit the discussion to the issue of the Temporary Suspension Order of May 2002, and therefore the draft decision had been written. This was word for word similar to a decision that had been adopted by consensus by the Human Rights Committee. He urged the Committee to participate in the discussion of this draft decision, and hoped it would be adopted rapidly.

MARC BOSSUYT, Committee Expert, said that with regard to the legislative measure before the Committee, the political and legal dimensions could be divided. He had reservations about the political dimension, and did not think that the decision was the best thing, particularly because it would not diminish the terrorist attacks in Israel. Further, the way that the State of Israel reacted to attacks of this type, with rigorous application of the law, would not have a good result on the population of Israel. It was important to emphasize the legal issue and not the political one, in this case that the right of family reunification as such was not embodied in human rights texts, and it was not the given State that should take responsibility for making this possible. It was not the Committee’s place to take such a decision. There was a need to consider whether this Israeli law was discriminatory, and it did appear to be so. A State had a broad margin to ascertain its security needs, but whether family reunification raised the chances of Israel suffering terrorist attacks was to be determined, and more information was required. The text proposed was moderate, but had the speaker been in the place of the Human Rights Committee, he would not have adopted it as read. He proposed amendments to the language.

PATRICK THORNBERRY, Committee Expert functioning as Group Rapporteur for Israel, suggested further changes in the text of the draft decision. He agreed with Mr. Bossuyt’s suggestions as to changes in the text.

Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai, Committee Expert, said that the decision should also highlight the highly discriminatory aspect of the law in the text, since it was clearly against the rights of certain categories of spouses, and Committee Expert REGIS DE GOUTTES agreed, and suggested that the discriminatory aspect of the law should be included in the decision.

KURT HERNDL, Committee Expert, noted that the matter was still pending before Israel’s highest judiciary instance, and was therefore still under discussion, since apparently an appeal had been made to the Supreme Court, and this was a circumstance that should be mentioned in the decision. Mr. Aboul-Nasr pointed out that the law was currently being applied, even though it was still under discussion. He suggested that the final drafting be left to Mr. Thornberry, after which it could be adopted.

Following this discussion, the text, as amended, was adopted by consensus.



* *** *