COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION DISCUSSES MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES RELATING TO ITS METHODS OF WORK

CERD
61st session
13 August 2002
Afternoon


The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this afternoon discussed miscellaneous issues concerning its working methods, taking up the topics of concluding observations and relations with non-governmental organizations.
A Committee Expert said that on a trial basis, the Committee should debate its draft concluding observations on State reports in private before releasing them to the concerned States parties. Another Expert noted that at present, the discussion on draft conclusions took several steps: the collection of views from members by the country rapporteur, incorporating them in the draft, and the general discussion of the whole text. The conclusions were debated and adopted in public.
An Expert was of the view that the debate on the concluding observations should continue to be held in public, in the presence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The idea of discussing draft concluding observations in private would exclude the NGOs which had participated in such exercises of the Committee in the past.
The Committee should be courageous to say in public what it said in private, another Expert said. Discussions in closed meetings would not necessarily be secret B the essence of the debate in a private meeting could be revealed by either a member of the Committee or by any other means. Even matters discussed in the Security Council in secrecy were divulged to the public. The Committee, therefore, should hold its debates on concluding observations in public.
Another Expert said that the Committee could change its working methods in accordance with the rule of procedures no. 31. It could decide anytime whether to discuss matters in private or in public.
An Expert was of the view that NGOs working with the Committee had their own opinions. The Committee respected the views expressed by NGOs, but it also had to hear the views of all parties, particularly those of the States parties. The views expressed by NGOs in the mass media did not reflect the views of the Committee. For example, the Committee did not decide anything on the situation of Fiji but NGOs gave their own views to the press.
Although the Committee was the master of its own procedure, the situation should be harmonized and coordinated with other human rights treaty bodies, another Expert said. The fact that the Committee could change its working procedures according to the rules of procedures did not mean that it should change them anytime it wished.
The involvement of non-governmental organizations was vital for the continuation of their cooperation with the Committee, another speaker said. The Committee had so far been dealing with concluding observations in public, except for individual communications that it had been examining in private session.
Another Committee member added his voice, saying that if the Committee decided on debating concluding observations in private, there would be a certain level of shock on the part of the NGOs. It would be a step backward.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 14 August, it will debate its draft concluding observations and recommendations on the reports of Armenia which were examined last week.



* *** *