Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF MEXICO
21 February 2006
Share
Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination
21 February 2006
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the twelfth to fifteenth periodic reports of Mexico on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Presenting the report was María del Refugio González, Under Secretary for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of the Department for Foreign Relations of Mexico, who said that Mexico had been undergoing major economic and social changes in recent years. Under the present Administration its human rights policy had been substantially reinforced. She highlighted recent initiatives to implement the Convention in the legislative and administrative spheres, notably the creation of the National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples in May 2003, which was tasked with directing and coordinating Mexican policy for the development and maintenance of indigenous peoples and communities and promoting the full exercise of their rights.
Also presenting the report, which were presented in one document, was Gilberto Rincón Gallardo, President of the National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination, who noted that racial discrimination and discrimination based on ethnic origin went hand in hand in Mexico. However, if Mexico faced a tremendous challenge in combating discrimination, the Government was committed to progress on that front as a necessary precondition to the consolidation of democracy.
In the course of the discussion, which was held over two meetings, issues concerning discrimination against indigenous peoples, Mexicans of African descent and migrant workers, both within and outside of Mexico, were addressed. Specifically, questions regarding the improvement of the situation of those groups in terms of socio-economic indicators were addressed, including through land reform and programmes in the spheres of education, health care, and housing and infrastructure.
In preliminary remarks, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Mexico, José Francisco Cali Tzay, expressed his conviction that the free, open and frank dialogue with the delegation would be of great benefit in addressing the question of racial discrimination in that country. He was concerned, among other things, that the protection of the rights of indigenous people might be jeopardized, given the report's overly inclusive definition of vulnerable groups, which appeared to encompass a majority of the population.
The Committee will present its final recommendations on the reports of Mexico at the end of its session, which concludes on 10 March.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to take up the second and third periodic reports of Lithuania (CERD/C/461/Add.2).
Report of Mexico
According to the twelfth to fifteenth periodic reports, submitted in one document (CERD/C/473/Add.1), Mexico has two clear priorities in implementing the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination: the situation of its indigenous population, who are a socio-economically disadvantaged ethnic minority, and the situation of migrant workers, both domestically and abroad. While discrimination can still be found at all levels of Mexican society, there have been important and decisive steps to eliminate it during the reporting period (1996-2003) and Mexico notes significant progress in the political, economic and social spheres for members of its ethnic minority population, as well as for migrant workers, owing to affirmative action initiatives and projects.
In August 2001, the Mexican Constitution was amended to provide significant new protections to indigenous peoples. In June 2003 the Federal Act to Prevent and Eliminate Discrimination established the National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination, which was responsible for conducting and coordinating anti-discrimination policies in Mexico. One of the major obstacles to progress in this area was that constitutional reforms concerning indigenous rights and culture respected the sovereignty of Mexican states. Thus, while Constitutional amendments on this topic had been adopted by 19 states, they were rejected by 9 and were still under consideration in a further 3 states.
The report deals with the protection of Mexican migrants in the United States, Mexico’s accession to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Their Families, the protection of migrants in Mexico, notably migrant workers from Guatemala, and a primary education programme for migrant girls and boys. With regard to issues affecting indigenous peoples, the report looks at strides made in assessing the proportion of the indigenous population in Mexico, as well as their social indicators, through reformed census and analytical mechanisms, measures taken to settle land disputes, legislative measures to combat discrimination against indigenous peoples, including on the basis of language, tradition and customs, as well as mechanisms established to promote political representation and freedom of expression among that segment of the population. Finally, the report addresses measures taken to strengthen a culture of non-discrimination in the country. Mexico remains convinced that human rights education is the most effective way of preventing the transmission, from generation to generation, of racist and discriminatory practices.
Presentation of Report
MARÍA DEL REFUGIO GONZÁLEZ, Under Secretary for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of the Department for Foreign Relations, introducing the report, said that Mexico had been undergoing major economic and social changes in recent years. Under the present Administration its human rights policy had been substantially reinforced. Among other advances, national legislation had been aligned with Mexico's international obligations in the area of human rights. During the reporting period, Mexico had encouraged the participation of civil society in establishing best practices in this area and the current country report had been drafted on that basis. Ms. Gonález also highlighted recent initiatives to implement the Convention in the legislative and administrative spheres, notably the creation of the National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples in May 2003, replacing the National Institute for Indigenous Affairs, which was tasked with directing and coordinating Mexican policy for the development and maintenance of indigenous peoples and communities and promoting the full exercise of their rights. She also drew attention to the promulgation, in 2003, of both the Federal Act to Prevent and Eliminate Discrimination and the General Act on the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples, by which the National Institute for Indigenous Languages was established.
While noting that much remained to be done to eradicate discrimination in the country, she assured the Committee that Mexico was confident that, with the help of the Committee and other international human rights organizations, it would be able to progress along the difficult road to the attainment of the full enjoyment of human rights by all of its citizens.
GILBERTO RINCÓN GALLARDO, President of the National Council to Prevent Discrimination, continuing the presentation of Mexico's report, said that the issue of racial discrimination was of great importance to the Government of Mexico as it had been an integral part of the country's history, which had seen the exclusion of whole social groups. Indigenous groups and Mexicans of African descent were particularly vulnerable, he noted, and had suffered socio-economic disadvantages as well as other evils because of discriminatory practices. In that regard, he noted that racial discrimination and discrimination based on ethnic origin went hand in hand in Mexico. However, if Mexico faced a tremendous challenge in combating discrimination, the Government was committed to progress on that front as a necessary precondition to the consolidation of democracy. The systematic and coordinated action that was needed in all areas to prevent discrimination was as yet in its early stages in Mexico, which now recognized its historical debt to the indigenous peoples and those of African descent as integral and important contributors to Mexican society.
There were 12 million indigenous persons in Mexico, representing a little over one tenth of the population, disbursed over 21,000 different settlements. One fifth of Mexico's territory, which covered over 2 million square kilometres, was inhabited by indigenous populations. According to statistics gathered by the United Nations Development Programme and the Mexican Government, there were 62 indigenous languages, which had now been recognized as national languages by the Act on Indigenous Languages. In Mexico there were 450,000 inhabitants of African descent, mostly concentrated in the three states of Guerrero, Oaxaca and Veracruz. The report concluded that there was a clear link between poverty and discrimination and noted that the municipalities with the most indigenous peoples were also the poorest and most disadvantaged. The five states with the highest indigenous populations, Puebla, Michoacán, Guerrero, Oaxaca and Veracruz, were also those that ranked last in the National Human Development Index. That social situation, Mr. Rincón Gallardo observed, was one of long-standing, whereas local and federal legislation and administrative initiatives to address those conditions were of recent date. The Mexican State could not claim results as yet, only that the way had been cleared to allow for change.
Importantly, in August 2001 articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution had been amended to help prevent discrimination. Amended article 1 now specifically prohibited discrimination on a wide variety of criteria, including age, gender, ethnicity and race, among others, while amended article 2 recognized the multicultural nature of the Mexican State and the contribution and existence of indigenous peoples in its formation. That article also imposed positive obligations on states and municipalities to make special provisions for its vulnerable indigenous populations and to foster their enjoyment of human rights. In 2003 the Federal Act for the Prevention of Discrimination was promulgated and the Government Human Rights Policy Commission was established to guide and coordinate policy within Mexico for the comprehensive sustainable development of the native peoples of Mexico and their human rights.
Regarding ethnic and racial discrimination against migrants, Mr. Rincón Gallardo said that Mexico had acceded to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Their Families. The issue of migrants, both from Mexico into the United States and from other Central American States into Mexico, was an important one considering that there more than 10 million Mexican men and women were international migrants, and that there were several million more internal migrants, all of whom suffered from discrimination. Violations of migrants' human rights were addressed by the Office of the Secretary for Labour and Social Assistance as well as by the National Human Rights Commission. Migratory workers benefited from the same labour protections as other Mexicans, as there was no distinction made between the two groups in that respect in Mexican legislation. A number of safe shelters for migrants had also been set up. Programmes for women heads of household and their children, led by workers of the same sex, were established for the protection of female migrants and to encourage the children of migrants to attend school. Cooperation between the National Institute for Women and the National Institute for Migration had led to the development of a website on gender and migration as a forum for information exchange on that topic.
In terms of the justice system and indigenous issues, a separate bureau had been set up in the Attorney-General's office to handle indigenous affairs. Due process and the right to a fair trial were guaranteed. Mr. Rincon Gallardo noted, however, that though interpretation and court appointed defence was the right of all, in practice it was not always available and more remained to be done to facilitate the enjoyment of their legal rights by minority groups. Where demographically desirable, specialist services should be set up with a view to meeting the legal requirements of indigenous peoples and communities. Work was under way: a national list of public defenders had been drawn up which indicated which lawyers had knowledge of indigenous languages and customs and a drive was being made to certify interpreters and translators in indigenous languages.
The vulnerability of indigenous groups sprang from the historical pillaging of their lands, which contributed to their exclusion and lack of opportunities. Thus conflicts concerning land tenure were a major concern to the indigenous population. Based on an analysis of the length and seriousness of these disputes, the Government had pinpointed 14 critical areas, and in 10 of those the issues had been resolved through dialogue and conciliation processes.
As part of the National Education Programme 2001-2006, an international bilingual education campaign for cultural diversity had been launched that included media campaigns and educational programmes to promote intercultural dialogue to reduce discrimination, exclusion and the existing social inequalities. A study on discrimination against indigenous people within the media had also been carried out.
It was noted that in 2004, there were only six complaints lodged of discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin, and in 2005 there were only eight, but that number obviously did not reflect the total number of acts of racial discrimination. While many cases were probably not reported because individuals were unaware of the new administrative recourses open to them, the absence of enforcement was an issue that must be remedied. Finally, Mr. Rincón Gallardo said that in January 2006, Mexico had concluded a collaboration agreement between the National Council to Prevent Discrimination and the United Nations system to follow up and review Mexico's national programme on the elimination of discrimination. He hoped that the Committee would work with Mexico in the joint task of establishing a society of equals in Mexico in which respect for the ethnic and racial background of citizens would be considered a form of wealth and not a basis for exclusion and discrimination.
Oral Questions Raised by the Country Rapporteur and Committee Experts
JOSÉ FRANCISCO CALI TZAY, the Committee Expert who served as country Rappporteur for Mexico, thanked the State party for the comprehensive report. It neglected to cover, however, some human rights matters relating to the Chiapas conflict, some serious reports in Mexican press on the massacre of indigenous peoples, as well as a report that found Mexico in violation of the provisions of the Convention of the International Labour Organization. Those questions should be explored by the Committee in a spirit of dialogue with the State party. Also, although he noted that it had been mentioned in the oral presentation, the report contained no reference to discrimination against persons of African descent, although that segment of the population was also a particular target of discrimination. While the report noted that several Mexican states had rejected the constitutional reforms targeting discrimination that had been legislated in 2001, it provided no information or explanation why this was so and he requested further clarification. Regarding institutional reform in the area of the prevention of discrimination, how did the newly established National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination differ from the National Human Rights Commission? Where did they overlap and how did they complement each other?
Although the Committee had asked for detailed information on the indigenous population in Mexico, he noted that the report did not even state how many indigenous groups existed in Mexico today, just how many existed prior to 1982. In paragraph 112, the report noted that indigenous peoples did not have legal security in the area of land tenure. Later, the report said that the purpose of the Government's current land reform programme was not to privatize the communal land held by indigenous groups, but to set it aside for the use of those communities. That appeared to be a contradiction. How was land to be set aside without being privatized?
Paragraphs 122 to 130 referred to the constitutional reforms of 2001, which had been subject to complaints from indigenous peoples that they had not been consulted in drafting the reform. He asked why such an open consultation was not held, and noted that that right was established by the Convention of the International Labour Organization to which Mexico was a party. Also the distinction between indigenous peoples and indigenous populations, both of which terms appeared in the report, was not clear.
Regarding linguistic issues, what was meant by the fact that indigenous languages were recognized as national languages? Did they have merely regional use and value or were they of national use and value? As with legislative reform, he noted that indigenous peoples should be able to participate in all matters that directly affected them. What role had they played in the establishment of the National Institute on Indigenous Languages? Had they played a constructive role or did they function simply as providers of statistical information?
While the report contained statistics on various infrastructure projects that had been undertaken for the benefit of indigenous peoples, he was dubious that the roads mentioned as part of the infrastructure benefiting indigenous communities had been built mainly for their benefit. It was also notable that no mention had been made in the report of the forced sterilization of indigenous women, which had been practiced in the past. Under international law this practice was associated with genocide, and thus ranked as a crime against humanity. As the Mexican authorities admitted this practice had occurred in the past, what measures were they taking to bring those responsible for these sterilization programmes to trial and to guarantee their punishment? The report noted that the Mexican Constitution recognized the right of indigenous communities to self-determination, but given general recommendation XXI, the Rapporteur pointed out that self-determination had been restrictively construed in the report to include only representation at the local level. Finally he said that while the Mexican authorities did recognize the continued presence of discrimination in Mexico, he felt that the programmes described in the report were inadequate to eliminate it and insufficiently addressed the question of social education. There had also not been sufficient recognition of indigenous legal systems.
In further questions and comments by other Experts, one Expert requested further information on cases of discrimination against migrants in Mexico, as well as the specific mechanisms that had been established to help them. The Special Rapporteur for migrants had previously expressed concern that there was a penalty of 10 years imprisonment for undocumented migrants in Mexico. While that penalty was often not enforced in practice, it was still a disturbing fact and left wide scope for excessive penalties in certain cases.
On the issue of indigenous peoples, one Expert asked what were the concrete accomplishments of the National Institute for Indigenous Languages, whether there been any clashes between the authority of indigenous courts and other national courts, and what role the principle of self-identification played in the new methodologies for gauging ethnic appurtenance to indigenous groups. Noting that social indicators for indigenous peoples were far below the national average, in areas such as literacy, safe drinking water and income, what programmes were addressing that gap and seeking to redress it? Given that the illiteracy rate was almost 40 per cent of the indigenous population, how could those populations hope to enjoy their rights? Another Expert said that, on the basis of his own of casual observation it appeared to him that 90 per cent of the Mexican population were indigenous and not 10 per cent as the report stated. If only 10 per cent of the population were indeed indigenous, what was the make up of the rest of the population? Also, the report presented the conflict in Chiapas as a discrete phenomenon, but it was unclear what affect it had on other areas of the country. The Committee needed more information as to how negotiations were progressing there.
What specific measures had been taken by Mexico to address the issues facing indigenous peoples within the criminal justice system and what agency was responsible for monitoring discrimination in that sphere, an Expert asked.
Several Experts echoed the Country Rapporteur's call for clarification on the land reform scheme for privatization and also wanted to know what role indigenous people played in the formulation of that programme? Noting that according to the report the vast majority of communidades did not have any form of documentation and therefore the legal tenure of 90 per cent of indigenous lands had not been regularized under the programme, one Expert wondered if in the indigenous context alternative forms of documentation of ownership might be considered, including oral testimony.
Several Experts also joined the Rapporteur in asking for further details about Mexicans of African descent and what was being done to address discrimination against that population. In that context, they also asked for clarification on the separate mandates of the newly established human rights bodies and wondered how their work was going to be coordinated.
Response by Delegation to Questions
With regards to why all Mexican states had not ratified the national legislation against discrimination, the delegation noted that there was a white paper on the subject that outlined discussions between indigenous groups and the legislature in those states. That paper would be made available to the Committee. Regarding Chiapas, the report had noted that that was an area where indigenous peoples were subject to backward conditions. The situation in Chiapas, and the agreements to settle the dispute there, were, however, not necessarily typical of the conditions that existed elsewhere in the country. As to progress on events in Chiapas, the delegation said that the dialogue between the Government and the Zapatista party had not broken down, but had reached a stalemate for the moment. Responding to the query concerning a lack of consultation with indigenous peoples on the constitutional reforms that targeted discrimination against them, the delegation said that indigenous peoples had indeed participated in those processes, as recorded in the white paper already mentioned. Indeed, indigenous peoples participated in various administrative bodies that focused on indigenous issues, such as the National Council on Indigenous Peoples.
As to the distinction between the terms indigenous peoples and indigenous populations used in the report, the delegation said that populations was the term used when talking about indigenous peoples in geographic terms. Mexico did not gather statistics on the population on the basis of race and perhaps that explained why one Expert had been unable to understand how statistics claimed only a 10 per cent minority population in Mexico. Most of the population defined itself as mestizo, or mixed.
Regarding indigenous involvement in the sphere of justice, they were granted the possibility of resolving local disputes according to their traditional customs, provided that these customs were in accordance with the Constitution and federal law.
As to what purpose was served by the Act on Indigenous Languages, the delegation said that it served to recognize the indigenous languages as national languages, along with Spanish. That would help to keep those languages from being lost and to promote their use and dissemination in the administrative sphere.
Concerning programmes to address the improvement of indigenous communities, the delegation said Mexico had a programme that targeted basic infrastructure and communications for indigenous peoples, specifically those indigenous communities that were most in need. Mexico had taken direct action to address the health of indigenous communities, including the use of traditional medicine, which was now respected. In that regard, there had been no Government programme or involvement whatsoever in forced sterilization of Mexican women. The report mentioned that practice, but only to condemn it. While it was true that isolated cases had been reported in four states in the past, those cases were reported to the Commission on Human Rights, investigated by the competent health authorities of the Mexican State and action taken. But it was stressed that such practices were neither a part of Mexican culture nor Government policy.
In education, schools had been set up for indigenous students, the delegation said. A language school had been established in conjunction with the relevant linguistic bodies.
Responding to the question as to how indigenous persons could enjoy their rights without the requisite literacy and education, the delegation said the Mexican Government had several projects that targeted education for indigenous peoples, including a programme that encouraged indigenous communities to keep their children in school. It was noted that, of the approximately 1 million indigenous people in Mexico who spoke only their indigenous language, about half were women. For that reason the Government was focusing on improving the condition of indigenous women first and foremost, including the certification of midwives, provision of clinics for women's health, programmes to address the feminisation of poverty, and radio programmes on health care for indigenous women to give them information on how to take care of their health, to make them aware of their rights and the services available to them, including family planning.
With regard to the distinction made by the report between land set aside as communal land and the privatization of indigenous lands, it was explained that land that had been set aside for communal use did not belong privately to a single individual but was communally owned.
Regarding further details on Mexicans of African descent, the delegation said members of that minority had formed a group that had made three specific demands of the Government: that the National Institute For Statistics include such groups in the next national census; that federal and state legislatures amend their legal procedures to grant recognition to new ethnic groups, such as theirs; and that the National Institute for the Prevention of Discrimination ensure that public policies to combat discrimination would also specifically target their group.
As to the differences in the mandates of the National Council to Prevent Discrimination and the National Human Rights Commission, it was noted that while the Council dealt with complaints from citizens on discrimination issues, the Human Rights Commission dealt solely with alleged violations of human rights by civil servants. The Council made recommendations on federal law and policies to ensure that they were in line with Mexico's human rights policy, while the Human Rights Commission only looked at specific cases. The two bodies were thus complementary, and not overlapping.
Preliminary Remarks
JOSÉ FRANCISCO CALI TZAY, the Committee Expert who served as country Rappporteur for Mexico, thanked the Mexican delegation for the open, frank, and wide-ranging discussion and constructive dialogue. He had been particularly struck by the volume of statistical and other information on indigenous peoples provided to him by the delegation in response to his questions and said that they had answered or clarified many of his questions.
Regarding the questions raised about forced sterilization practices, paragraph 153 of the report stated that certain administrative practices constituted violations of the right of indigenous people to make a free and informed decision as to the number and spacing of their children, and he said that that reference was what had prompted the questions on sterilization. Also, noting that in the presentation of the report the delegation had pointed to a lack of a tradition among the native population to seek redress for violations of their human rights, he wondered if many people did not launch complaints about forced sterilization as well, for fear of reprisals. Also, despite the information on health care for indigenous populations, he noted that there had been an upsurge of illness in the states of Guerrero, Chiapas and Oaxaca.
There was also an inherent problem, he said, with the definition of vulnerable groups as referenced in the report and he was unsure who was not to be included in such groups. They appeared to include indigenous peoples, minorities, the disabled, those with different sexual orientations or infected with HIV/AIDS, girls, older persons and women, among others. That definition covered the majority of the population, and he was concerned that the specificity of indigenous peoples rights would be lost among the crowd. Also he did not feel indigenous peoples should be treated as or considered to be minorities.
Regarding the issue of land tenure reform and the hot spots identified by the Government for special consideration, he noted that these were longstanding problems and it was specifically the lack of timely action by the authorities charged with resolving such disputes that had allowed those situations to escalate to this critical point.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
of Racial Discrimination
21 February 2006
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the twelfth to fifteenth periodic reports of Mexico on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Presenting the report was María del Refugio González, Under Secretary for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of the Department for Foreign Relations of Mexico, who said that Mexico had been undergoing major economic and social changes in recent years. Under the present Administration its human rights policy had been substantially reinforced. She highlighted recent initiatives to implement the Convention in the legislative and administrative spheres, notably the creation of the National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples in May 2003, which was tasked with directing and coordinating Mexican policy for the development and maintenance of indigenous peoples and communities and promoting the full exercise of their rights.
Also presenting the report, which were presented in one document, was Gilberto Rincón Gallardo, President of the National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination, who noted that racial discrimination and discrimination based on ethnic origin went hand in hand in Mexico. However, if Mexico faced a tremendous challenge in combating discrimination, the Government was committed to progress on that front as a necessary precondition to the consolidation of democracy.
In the course of the discussion, which was held over two meetings, issues concerning discrimination against indigenous peoples, Mexicans of African descent and migrant workers, both within and outside of Mexico, were addressed. Specifically, questions regarding the improvement of the situation of those groups in terms of socio-economic indicators were addressed, including through land reform and programmes in the spheres of education, health care, and housing and infrastructure.
In preliminary remarks, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Mexico, José Francisco Cali Tzay, expressed his conviction that the free, open and frank dialogue with the delegation would be of great benefit in addressing the question of racial discrimination in that country. He was concerned, among other things, that the protection of the rights of indigenous people might be jeopardized, given the report's overly inclusive definition of vulnerable groups, which appeared to encompass a majority of the population.
The Committee will present its final recommendations on the reports of Mexico at the end of its session, which concludes on 10 March.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to take up the second and third periodic reports of Lithuania (CERD/C/461/Add.2).
Report of Mexico
According to the twelfth to fifteenth periodic reports, submitted in one document (CERD/C/473/Add.1), Mexico has two clear priorities in implementing the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination: the situation of its indigenous population, who are a socio-economically disadvantaged ethnic minority, and the situation of migrant workers, both domestically and abroad. While discrimination can still be found at all levels of Mexican society, there have been important and decisive steps to eliminate it during the reporting period (1996-2003) and Mexico notes significant progress in the political, economic and social spheres for members of its ethnic minority population, as well as for migrant workers, owing to affirmative action initiatives and projects.
In August 2001, the Mexican Constitution was amended to provide significant new protections to indigenous peoples. In June 2003 the Federal Act to Prevent and Eliminate Discrimination established the National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination, which was responsible for conducting and coordinating anti-discrimination policies in Mexico. One of the major obstacles to progress in this area was that constitutional reforms concerning indigenous rights and culture respected the sovereignty of Mexican states. Thus, while Constitutional amendments on this topic had been adopted by 19 states, they were rejected by 9 and were still under consideration in a further 3 states.
The report deals with the protection of Mexican migrants in the United States, Mexico’s accession to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Their Families, the protection of migrants in Mexico, notably migrant workers from Guatemala, and a primary education programme for migrant girls and boys. With regard to issues affecting indigenous peoples, the report looks at strides made in assessing the proportion of the indigenous population in Mexico, as well as their social indicators, through reformed census and analytical mechanisms, measures taken to settle land disputes, legislative measures to combat discrimination against indigenous peoples, including on the basis of language, tradition and customs, as well as mechanisms established to promote political representation and freedom of expression among that segment of the population. Finally, the report addresses measures taken to strengthen a culture of non-discrimination in the country. Mexico remains convinced that human rights education is the most effective way of preventing the transmission, from generation to generation, of racist and discriminatory practices.
Presentation of Report
MARÍA DEL REFUGIO GONZÁLEZ, Under Secretary for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of the Department for Foreign Relations, introducing the report, said that Mexico had been undergoing major economic and social changes in recent years. Under the present Administration its human rights policy had been substantially reinforced. Among other advances, national legislation had been aligned with Mexico's international obligations in the area of human rights. During the reporting period, Mexico had encouraged the participation of civil society in establishing best practices in this area and the current country report had been drafted on that basis. Ms. Gonález also highlighted recent initiatives to implement the Convention in the legislative and administrative spheres, notably the creation of the National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples in May 2003, replacing the National Institute for Indigenous Affairs, which was tasked with directing and coordinating Mexican policy for the development and maintenance of indigenous peoples and communities and promoting the full exercise of their rights. She also drew attention to the promulgation, in 2003, of both the Federal Act to Prevent and Eliminate Discrimination and the General Act on the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples, by which the National Institute for Indigenous Languages was established.
While noting that much remained to be done to eradicate discrimination in the country, she assured the Committee that Mexico was confident that, with the help of the Committee and other international human rights organizations, it would be able to progress along the difficult road to the attainment of the full enjoyment of human rights by all of its citizens.
GILBERTO RINCÓN GALLARDO, President of the National Council to Prevent Discrimination, continuing the presentation of Mexico's report, said that the issue of racial discrimination was of great importance to the Government of Mexico as it had been an integral part of the country's history, which had seen the exclusion of whole social groups. Indigenous groups and Mexicans of African descent were particularly vulnerable, he noted, and had suffered socio-economic disadvantages as well as other evils because of discriminatory practices. In that regard, he noted that racial discrimination and discrimination based on ethnic origin went hand in hand in Mexico. However, if Mexico faced a tremendous challenge in combating discrimination, the Government was committed to progress on that front as a necessary precondition to the consolidation of democracy. The systematic and coordinated action that was needed in all areas to prevent discrimination was as yet in its early stages in Mexico, which now recognized its historical debt to the indigenous peoples and those of African descent as integral and important contributors to Mexican society.
There were 12 million indigenous persons in Mexico, representing a little over one tenth of the population, disbursed over 21,000 different settlements. One fifth of Mexico's territory, which covered over 2 million square kilometres, was inhabited by indigenous populations. According to statistics gathered by the United Nations Development Programme and the Mexican Government, there were 62 indigenous languages, which had now been recognized as national languages by the Act on Indigenous Languages. In Mexico there were 450,000 inhabitants of African descent, mostly concentrated in the three states of Guerrero, Oaxaca and Veracruz. The report concluded that there was a clear link between poverty and discrimination and noted that the municipalities with the most indigenous peoples were also the poorest and most disadvantaged. The five states with the highest indigenous populations, Puebla, Michoacán, Guerrero, Oaxaca and Veracruz, were also those that ranked last in the National Human Development Index. That social situation, Mr. Rincón Gallardo observed, was one of long-standing, whereas local and federal legislation and administrative initiatives to address those conditions were of recent date. The Mexican State could not claim results as yet, only that the way had been cleared to allow for change.
Importantly, in August 2001 articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution had been amended to help prevent discrimination. Amended article 1 now specifically prohibited discrimination on a wide variety of criteria, including age, gender, ethnicity and race, among others, while amended article 2 recognized the multicultural nature of the Mexican State and the contribution and existence of indigenous peoples in its formation. That article also imposed positive obligations on states and municipalities to make special provisions for its vulnerable indigenous populations and to foster their enjoyment of human rights. In 2003 the Federal Act for the Prevention of Discrimination was promulgated and the Government Human Rights Policy Commission was established to guide and coordinate policy within Mexico for the comprehensive sustainable development of the native peoples of Mexico and their human rights.
Regarding ethnic and racial discrimination against migrants, Mr. Rincón Gallardo said that Mexico had acceded to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Their Families. The issue of migrants, both from Mexico into the United States and from other Central American States into Mexico, was an important one considering that there more than 10 million Mexican men and women were international migrants, and that there were several million more internal migrants, all of whom suffered from discrimination. Violations of migrants' human rights were addressed by the Office of the Secretary for Labour and Social Assistance as well as by the National Human Rights Commission. Migratory workers benefited from the same labour protections as other Mexicans, as there was no distinction made between the two groups in that respect in Mexican legislation. A number of safe shelters for migrants had also been set up. Programmes for women heads of household and their children, led by workers of the same sex, were established for the protection of female migrants and to encourage the children of migrants to attend school. Cooperation between the National Institute for Women and the National Institute for Migration had led to the development of a website on gender and migration as a forum for information exchange on that topic.
In terms of the justice system and indigenous issues, a separate bureau had been set up in the Attorney-General's office to handle indigenous affairs. Due process and the right to a fair trial were guaranteed. Mr. Rincon Gallardo noted, however, that though interpretation and court appointed defence was the right of all, in practice it was not always available and more remained to be done to facilitate the enjoyment of their legal rights by minority groups. Where demographically desirable, specialist services should be set up with a view to meeting the legal requirements of indigenous peoples and communities. Work was under way: a national list of public defenders had been drawn up which indicated which lawyers had knowledge of indigenous languages and customs and a drive was being made to certify interpreters and translators in indigenous languages.
The vulnerability of indigenous groups sprang from the historical pillaging of their lands, which contributed to their exclusion and lack of opportunities. Thus conflicts concerning land tenure were a major concern to the indigenous population. Based on an analysis of the length and seriousness of these disputes, the Government had pinpointed 14 critical areas, and in 10 of those the issues had been resolved through dialogue and conciliation processes.
As part of the National Education Programme 2001-2006, an international bilingual education campaign for cultural diversity had been launched that included media campaigns and educational programmes to promote intercultural dialogue to reduce discrimination, exclusion and the existing social inequalities. A study on discrimination against indigenous people within the media had also been carried out.
It was noted that in 2004, there were only six complaints lodged of discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin, and in 2005 there were only eight, but that number obviously did not reflect the total number of acts of racial discrimination. While many cases were probably not reported because individuals were unaware of the new administrative recourses open to them, the absence of enforcement was an issue that must be remedied. Finally, Mr. Rincón Gallardo said that in January 2006, Mexico had concluded a collaboration agreement between the National Council to Prevent Discrimination and the United Nations system to follow up and review Mexico's national programme on the elimination of discrimination. He hoped that the Committee would work with Mexico in the joint task of establishing a society of equals in Mexico in which respect for the ethnic and racial background of citizens would be considered a form of wealth and not a basis for exclusion and discrimination.
Oral Questions Raised by the Country Rapporteur and Committee Experts
JOSÉ FRANCISCO CALI TZAY, the Committee Expert who served as country Rappporteur for Mexico, thanked the State party for the comprehensive report. It neglected to cover, however, some human rights matters relating to the Chiapas conflict, some serious reports in Mexican press on the massacre of indigenous peoples, as well as a report that found Mexico in violation of the provisions of the Convention of the International Labour Organization. Those questions should be explored by the Committee in a spirit of dialogue with the State party. Also, although he noted that it had been mentioned in the oral presentation, the report contained no reference to discrimination against persons of African descent, although that segment of the population was also a particular target of discrimination. While the report noted that several Mexican states had rejected the constitutional reforms targeting discrimination that had been legislated in 2001, it provided no information or explanation why this was so and he requested further clarification. Regarding institutional reform in the area of the prevention of discrimination, how did the newly established National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination differ from the National Human Rights Commission? Where did they overlap and how did they complement each other?
Although the Committee had asked for detailed information on the indigenous population in Mexico, he noted that the report did not even state how many indigenous groups existed in Mexico today, just how many existed prior to 1982. In paragraph 112, the report noted that indigenous peoples did not have legal security in the area of land tenure. Later, the report said that the purpose of the Government's current land reform programme was not to privatize the communal land held by indigenous groups, but to set it aside for the use of those communities. That appeared to be a contradiction. How was land to be set aside without being privatized?
Paragraphs 122 to 130 referred to the constitutional reforms of 2001, which had been subject to complaints from indigenous peoples that they had not been consulted in drafting the reform. He asked why such an open consultation was not held, and noted that that right was established by the Convention of the International Labour Organization to which Mexico was a party. Also the distinction between indigenous peoples and indigenous populations, both of which terms appeared in the report, was not clear.
Regarding linguistic issues, what was meant by the fact that indigenous languages were recognized as national languages? Did they have merely regional use and value or were they of national use and value? As with legislative reform, he noted that indigenous peoples should be able to participate in all matters that directly affected them. What role had they played in the establishment of the National Institute on Indigenous Languages? Had they played a constructive role or did they function simply as providers of statistical information?
While the report contained statistics on various infrastructure projects that had been undertaken for the benefit of indigenous peoples, he was dubious that the roads mentioned as part of the infrastructure benefiting indigenous communities had been built mainly for their benefit. It was also notable that no mention had been made in the report of the forced sterilization of indigenous women, which had been practiced in the past. Under international law this practice was associated with genocide, and thus ranked as a crime against humanity. As the Mexican authorities admitted this practice had occurred in the past, what measures were they taking to bring those responsible for these sterilization programmes to trial and to guarantee their punishment? The report noted that the Mexican Constitution recognized the right of indigenous communities to self-determination, but given general recommendation XXI, the Rapporteur pointed out that self-determination had been restrictively construed in the report to include only representation at the local level. Finally he said that while the Mexican authorities did recognize the continued presence of discrimination in Mexico, he felt that the programmes described in the report were inadequate to eliminate it and insufficiently addressed the question of social education. There had also not been sufficient recognition of indigenous legal systems.
In further questions and comments by other Experts, one Expert requested further information on cases of discrimination against migrants in Mexico, as well as the specific mechanisms that had been established to help them. The Special Rapporteur for migrants had previously expressed concern that there was a penalty of 10 years imprisonment for undocumented migrants in Mexico. While that penalty was often not enforced in practice, it was still a disturbing fact and left wide scope for excessive penalties in certain cases.
On the issue of indigenous peoples, one Expert asked what were the concrete accomplishments of the National Institute for Indigenous Languages, whether there been any clashes between the authority of indigenous courts and other national courts, and what role the principle of self-identification played in the new methodologies for gauging ethnic appurtenance to indigenous groups. Noting that social indicators for indigenous peoples were far below the national average, in areas such as literacy, safe drinking water and income, what programmes were addressing that gap and seeking to redress it? Given that the illiteracy rate was almost 40 per cent of the indigenous population, how could those populations hope to enjoy their rights? Another Expert said that, on the basis of his own of casual observation it appeared to him that 90 per cent of the Mexican population were indigenous and not 10 per cent as the report stated. If only 10 per cent of the population were indeed indigenous, what was the make up of the rest of the population? Also, the report presented the conflict in Chiapas as a discrete phenomenon, but it was unclear what affect it had on other areas of the country. The Committee needed more information as to how negotiations were progressing there.
What specific measures had been taken by Mexico to address the issues facing indigenous peoples within the criminal justice system and what agency was responsible for monitoring discrimination in that sphere, an Expert asked.
Several Experts echoed the Country Rapporteur's call for clarification on the land reform scheme for privatization and also wanted to know what role indigenous people played in the formulation of that programme? Noting that according to the report the vast majority of communidades did not have any form of documentation and therefore the legal tenure of 90 per cent of indigenous lands had not been regularized under the programme, one Expert wondered if in the indigenous context alternative forms of documentation of ownership might be considered, including oral testimony.
Several Experts also joined the Rapporteur in asking for further details about Mexicans of African descent and what was being done to address discrimination against that population. In that context, they also asked for clarification on the separate mandates of the newly established human rights bodies and wondered how their work was going to be coordinated.
Response by Delegation to Questions
With regards to why all Mexican states had not ratified the national legislation against discrimination, the delegation noted that there was a white paper on the subject that outlined discussions between indigenous groups and the legislature in those states. That paper would be made available to the Committee. Regarding Chiapas, the report had noted that that was an area where indigenous peoples were subject to backward conditions. The situation in Chiapas, and the agreements to settle the dispute there, were, however, not necessarily typical of the conditions that existed elsewhere in the country. As to progress on events in Chiapas, the delegation said that the dialogue between the Government and the Zapatista party had not broken down, but had reached a stalemate for the moment. Responding to the query concerning a lack of consultation with indigenous peoples on the constitutional reforms that targeted discrimination against them, the delegation said that indigenous peoples had indeed participated in those processes, as recorded in the white paper already mentioned. Indeed, indigenous peoples participated in various administrative bodies that focused on indigenous issues, such as the National Council on Indigenous Peoples.
As to the distinction between the terms indigenous peoples and indigenous populations used in the report, the delegation said that populations was the term used when talking about indigenous peoples in geographic terms. Mexico did not gather statistics on the population on the basis of race and perhaps that explained why one Expert had been unable to understand how statistics claimed only a 10 per cent minority population in Mexico. Most of the population defined itself as mestizo, or mixed.
Regarding indigenous involvement in the sphere of justice, they were granted the possibility of resolving local disputes according to their traditional customs, provided that these customs were in accordance with the Constitution and federal law.
As to what purpose was served by the Act on Indigenous Languages, the delegation said that it served to recognize the indigenous languages as national languages, along with Spanish. That would help to keep those languages from being lost and to promote their use and dissemination in the administrative sphere.
Concerning programmes to address the improvement of indigenous communities, the delegation said Mexico had a programme that targeted basic infrastructure and communications for indigenous peoples, specifically those indigenous communities that were most in need. Mexico had taken direct action to address the health of indigenous communities, including the use of traditional medicine, which was now respected. In that regard, there had been no Government programme or involvement whatsoever in forced sterilization of Mexican women. The report mentioned that practice, but only to condemn it. While it was true that isolated cases had been reported in four states in the past, those cases were reported to the Commission on Human Rights, investigated by the competent health authorities of the Mexican State and action taken. But it was stressed that such practices were neither a part of Mexican culture nor Government policy.
In education, schools had been set up for indigenous students, the delegation said. A language school had been established in conjunction with the relevant linguistic bodies.
Responding to the question as to how indigenous persons could enjoy their rights without the requisite literacy and education, the delegation said the Mexican Government had several projects that targeted education for indigenous peoples, including a programme that encouraged indigenous communities to keep their children in school. It was noted that, of the approximately 1 million indigenous people in Mexico who spoke only their indigenous language, about half were women. For that reason the Government was focusing on improving the condition of indigenous women first and foremost, including the certification of midwives, provision of clinics for women's health, programmes to address the feminisation of poverty, and radio programmes on health care for indigenous women to give them information on how to take care of their health, to make them aware of their rights and the services available to them, including family planning.
With regard to the distinction made by the report between land set aside as communal land and the privatization of indigenous lands, it was explained that land that had been set aside for communal use did not belong privately to a single individual but was communally owned.
Regarding further details on Mexicans of African descent, the delegation said members of that minority had formed a group that had made three specific demands of the Government: that the National Institute For Statistics include such groups in the next national census; that federal and state legislatures amend their legal procedures to grant recognition to new ethnic groups, such as theirs; and that the National Institute for the Prevention of Discrimination ensure that public policies to combat discrimination would also specifically target their group.
As to the differences in the mandates of the National Council to Prevent Discrimination and the National Human Rights Commission, it was noted that while the Council dealt with complaints from citizens on discrimination issues, the Human Rights Commission dealt solely with alleged violations of human rights by civil servants. The Council made recommendations on federal law and policies to ensure that they were in line with Mexico's human rights policy, while the Human Rights Commission only looked at specific cases. The two bodies were thus complementary, and not overlapping.
Preliminary Remarks
JOSÉ FRANCISCO CALI TZAY, the Committee Expert who served as country Rappporteur for Mexico, thanked the Mexican delegation for the open, frank, and wide-ranging discussion and constructive dialogue. He had been particularly struck by the volume of statistical and other information on indigenous peoples provided to him by the delegation in response to his questions and said that they had answered or clarified many of his questions.
Regarding the questions raised about forced sterilization practices, paragraph 153 of the report stated that certain administrative practices constituted violations of the right of indigenous people to make a free and informed decision as to the number and spacing of their children, and he said that that reference was what had prompted the questions on sterilization. Also, noting that in the presentation of the report the delegation had pointed to a lack of a tradition among the native population to seek redress for violations of their human rights, he wondered if many people did not launch complaints about forced sterilization as well, for fear of reprisals. Also, despite the information on health care for indigenous populations, he noted that there had been an upsurge of illness in the states of Guerrero, Chiapas and Oaxaca.
There was also an inherent problem, he said, with the definition of vulnerable groups as referenced in the report and he was unsure who was not to be included in such groups. They appeared to include indigenous peoples, minorities, the disabled, those with different sexual orientations or infected with HIV/AIDS, girls, older persons and women, among others. That definition covered the majority of the population, and he was concerned that the specificity of indigenous peoples rights would be lost among the crowd. Also he did not feel indigenous peoples should be treated as or considered to be minorities.
Regarding the issue of land tenure reform and the hot spots identified by the Government for special consideration, he noted that these were longstanding problems and it was specifically the lack of timely action by the authorities charged with resolving such disputes that had allowed those situations to escalate to this critical point.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: