Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION REVIEWS ITS FOLLOW-UP PROCEDURE
05 March 2007
Share
Committee on Elimination
of Racial Discrimination
5 March 2007
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning reviewed its follow-up procedure, hearing a progress report from Committee Expert Morten Kjaerum on the status of States parties with regard to follow-up to the Committee's concluding observations, as well as a presentation on the outcome of a workshop undertaken by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the role of UN specialized agencies and field offices with regard to follow-up on human rights treaty bodies concluding observations.
Presenting a progress report on follow-up to the Committee's concluding observations, Committee Expert Morten Kjaerum said that since August 2006 the Committee had received three full follow-up reports from States parties that had been requested to make them: France, Bahrain and Georgia. Apart from those, seven States had been due to make follow-up reports at the beginning of this session and had not yet done so. The Secretariat would send reminder letters to those States.
Regarding France, whose periodic report (CERD/C/FRA/CO/16/Add.1) had been examined at the sixty-sixth session of the Committee in March 2005, the Committee, in its concluding observations, had requested further information on the implementation of the Court of Audits recommendations on employment and education for population groups of immigrant origins; measures to protect women at risk for double discrimination; strengthening the supervision for police personnel at holding centres for refugees and asylum seekers; and to provide the "travellers" community with services including access to more parking areas and to combat the exclusion of that group, in particular with regard to help and employment. Mr. Kjaerum felt that France had responded adequately to all of those issues, and that no specific steps should be taken at this time. However, France could be asked to include specific information on concrete matters in the next periodic report.
Concerning Bahrain, whose periodic report (CERD/C/BHR/CO/7/Add.1) had also been examined at the sixty-sixth session of the Committee, the Committee had requested information on implementation of four specific areas in its concluding observations. The Committee had recommended that Bahrain establish a national human rights institution, living up to the Paris Principles; that Bahrain encourage the establishment and working of integrationist institutions; that steps be taken to prevent and redress serious problems experienced by female domestic workers; and that all without distinction should enjoy the right to work, housing and social security equally. In its reply, Bahrain did not enumerate specific steps, but had relied on citing relevant legislation regarding those issues, or by simply stating that the Government encouraged the work of civil society organizations. Mr. Kjaerum felt the replies did not seem to provide sufficient information on the areas concerned. With regard to support for human rights organizations, the Committee should ask about the Political Associations act of 2005, which had been found to be unduly restrictive, and ask for information about the arrest of human rights activists in January 2007. Concerning domestic workers, the Committee could request what steps were being taken, in particular to ensure that the legislation in place protected female domestic workers, in particular with regard to debt bondage, passport withholding, rape and physical assault.
With respect to Georgia's report (CERD/C/GEO/CO/3/Add.1), which the Committee had considered at its sixty-seventh session in August 2005, the Committee had requested further information on three specific observations, and had received the reply in 13 December 2006. Georgia had been requested to detail information on its plan of action and specific actions to protect specific populations in the country, and to adopt specific legislation to protect minorities; and it had been requested to strengthen protections for asylum-seekers and refugees, including machinery to ensure that they would not be deported to States where they were at risk of being tortured, and that it consider adopting the Convention on Stateless Persons and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. As Georgia's replies were overly general, Mr. Kjaerum recommended that Georgia be asked to provide more information on the new plan of action to strengthen the rights and protections of various populations in Georgia, and to include specific information on how the goals for the new plan had been reached; it should be asked what concrete measures had been taken to ensure that the economic and social rights set out in Article 5 of the Convention were guaranteed to non-citizens, and that more information should be included on property confiscation and its impact on non-nationals; and Georgia should be asked whether the criteria in Georgia's legislation really reflected the concerns of the Committee as set out in its concluding observations, and to include information on that in its next periodic report.
Turning to the outcome of the Conference on 9 and 10 November 2006, convened by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the role of UN specialized agencies and the field presence of the Office with regard to follow-up on treaty body concluding observations, Mr. Kjaerum said that participants had noted that, while there had been an increase in the reference to treaty body concluding observations, it was still limited, and was not a systematic practice on the part of UN staff working at the country level. The discussion also highlighted perceived inadequacies in the concluding observations of treaty bodies, in particular their abstract nature. It was felt that operational recommendations in clear, forward-looking operative language, would help to facilitate the actual implementation of those recommendations on the ground. Treaty body representatives, for their part, underlined the importance of receiving concrete and timely input with regard to treaties, to enable the formulation of better-targeted recommendations. It was concluded that the concluding observations did need to be part of the work at the country level, and should be viewed as a strategic entry point for engaging with States parties on human rights issues. To that end, awareness needed to be raised among the various stakeholders of that process.
In the ensuing discussion, an Expert felt that the precise details of how to operationalize the Committee's recommendations was really a matter for the State itself, bearing in mind the principle of State responsibility.
Mr. Kjaerum felt that perhaps the Committee could consider revising its recommendations on the basis of the response, or lack thereof, from the State party involved. Additionally, the Committee could consult with the relevant local actors in the formulation of its recommendations.
Régis de Gouttes, the Chairperson, noted that it was a question of balance. The Committee was not a tribunal. If it wanted to keep the States parties in a dialogue, the Committee should not be overly prescriptive in its conclusions and recommendations.
At the end of the meeting, Linos Alexander Sicilianos, Committee Expert acting as coordinator for the follow-up procedure for individual communications, presented his report.
When the Committee next reconvenes in public, at 10 a.m., on Wednesday, 7 March, it is scheduled to have a dialogue with Gay McDougall, the Independent Expert on Minority Issues.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
of Racial Discrimination
5 March 2007
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning reviewed its follow-up procedure, hearing a progress report from Committee Expert Morten Kjaerum on the status of States parties with regard to follow-up to the Committee's concluding observations, as well as a presentation on the outcome of a workshop undertaken by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the role of UN specialized agencies and field offices with regard to follow-up on human rights treaty bodies concluding observations.
Presenting a progress report on follow-up to the Committee's concluding observations, Committee Expert Morten Kjaerum said that since August 2006 the Committee had received three full follow-up reports from States parties that had been requested to make them: France, Bahrain and Georgia. Apart from those, seven States had been due to make follow-up reports at the beginning of this session and had not yet done so. The Secretariat would send reminder letters to those States.
Regarding France, whose periodic report (CERD/C/FRA/CO/16/Add.1) had been examined at the sixty-sixth session of the Committee in March 2005, the Committee, in its concluding observations, had requested further information on the implementation of the Court of Audits recommendations on employment and education for population groups of immigrant origins; measures to protect women at risk for double discrimination; strengthening the supervision for police personnel at holding centres for refugees and asylum seekers; and to provide the "travellers" community with services including access to more parking areas and to combat the exclusion of that group, in particular with regard to help and employment. Mr. Kjaerum felt that France had responded adequately to all of those issues, and that no specific steps should be taken at this time. However, France could be asked to include specific information on concrete matters in the next periodic report.
Concerning Bahrain, whose periodic report (CERD/C/BHR/CO/7/Add.1) had also been examined at the sixty-sixth session of the Committee, the Committee had requested information on implementation of four specific areas in its concluding observations. The Committee had recommended that Bahrain establish a national human rights institution, living up to the Paris Principles; that Bahrain encourage the establishment and working of integrationist institutions; that steps be taken to prevent and redress serious problems experienced by female domestic workers; and that all without distinction should enjoy the right to work, housing and social security equally. In its reply, Bahrain did not enumerate specific steps, but had relied on citing relevant legislation regarding those issues, or by simply stating that the Government encouraged the work of civil society organizations. Mr. Kjaerum felt the replies did not seem to provide sufficient information on the areas concerned. With regard to support for human rights organizations, the Committee should ask about the Political Associations act of 2005, which had been found to be unduly restrictive, and ask for information about the arrest of human rights activists in January 2007. Concerning domestic workers, the Committee could request what steps were being taken, in particular to ensure that the legislation in place protected female domestic workers, in particular with regard to debt bondage, passport withholding, rape and physical assault.
With respect to Georgia's report (CERD/C/GEO/CO/3/Add.1), which the Committee had considered at its sixty-seventh session in August 2005, the Committee had requested further information on three specific observations, and had received the reply in 13 December 2006. Georgia had been requested to detail information on its plan of action and specific actions to protect specific populations in the country, and to adopt specific legislation to protect minorities; and it had been requested to strengthen protections for asylum-seekers and refugees, including machinery to ensure that they would not be deported to States where they were at risk of being tortured, and that it consider adopting the Convention on Stateless Persons and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. As Georgia's replies were overly general, Mr. Kjaerum recommended that Georgia be asked to provide more information on the new plan of action to strengthen the rights and protections of various populations in Georgia, and to include specific information on how the goals for the new plan had been reached; it should be asked what concrete measures had been taken to ensure that the economic and social rights set out in Article 5 of the Convention were guaranteed to non-citizens, and that more information should be included on property confiscation and its impact on non-nationals; and Georgia should be asked whether the criteria in Georgia's legislation really reflected the concerns of the Committee as set out in its concluding observations, and to include information on that in its next periodic report.
Turning to the outcome of the Conference on 9 and 10 November 2006, convened by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the role of UN specialized agencies and the field presence of the Office with regard to follow-up on treaty body concluding observations, Mr. Kjaerum said that participants had noted that, while there had been an increase in the reference to treaty body concluding observations, it was still limited, and was not a systematic practice on the part of UN staff working at the country level. The discussion also highlighted perceived inadequacies in the concluding observations of treaty bodies, in particular their abstract nature. It was felt that operational recommendations in clear, forward-looking operative language, would help to facilitate the actual implementation of those recommendations on the ground. Treaty body representatives, for their part, underlined the importance of receiving concrete and timely input with regard to treaties, to enable the formulation of better-targeted recommendations. It was concluded that the concluding observations did need to be part of the work at the country level, and should be viewed as a strategic entry point for engaging with States parties on human rights issues. To that end, awareness needed to be raised among the various stakeholders of that process.
In the ensuing discussion, an Expert felt that the precise details of how to operationalize the Committee's recommendations was really a matter for the State itself, bearing in mind the principle of State responsibility.
Mr. Kjaerum felt that perhaps the Committee could consider revising its recommendations on the basis of the response, or lack thereof, from the State party involved. Additionally, the Committee could consult with the relevant local actors in the formulation of its recommendations.
Régis de Gouttes, the Chairperson, noted that it was a question of balance. The Committee was not a tribunal. If it wanted to keep the States parties in a dialogue, the Committee should not be overly prescriptive in its conclusions and recommendations.
At the end of the meeting, Linos Alexander Sicilianos, Committee Expert acting as coordinator for the follow-up procedure for individual communications, presented his report.
When the Committee next reconvenes in public, at 10 a.m., on Wednesday, 7 March, it is scheduled to have a dialogue with Gay McDougall, the Independent Expert on Minority Issues.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: