COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION TAKES UP REPORT OF LEBANON

HR/CERD/98/15
10 March 1998


The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination began examination this afternoon of a report from Lebanon on measures adopted to implement the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Introducing the report, Mr. Nabil Maamari, Councillor to the Research and Documentation Centre at the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that at no point in history had Lebanon promoted or permitted the propagation on its territory of theories based on the superiority of a race or a group of persons of a particular colour or ethnic origin. Moreover, Lebanon engaged in no acts or practices of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions on its territory or abroad.

As part of 150 States parties to the Convention, Lebanon is required to submit periodic reports to the Committee.

During the discussion on the report of Lebanon, Ivan Garvalov, Committee member from Bulgaria who served as rapporteur, said the report of Lebanon was very interesting because of the pertinent information provided in connection with its implementation of the Convention and because of its frank approach including, in some cases, straightforward admissions of difficulties and mistakes. He requested more information on, among other things, the various ethnic groups living in the country as opposed to religious communities; prosecution and punishment of racially discriminatory acts; the rights of Palestinian refugees and foreign workers; and acquisition of Lebanese nationality.

Yuri Rechetov, the Committee member from the Russian Federation, opened consideration of the situation in Saint Lucia and said the country had not presented a report since it acceded to the Convention in 1990. To date four reports were due and had not yet been submitted. Mr. Rechetov said it seemed that the State did not have qualified personnel to submit the relevant reports. Although, Saint Lucia was not the scene of grave violations of the Convention, non-reporting was a violation of article 9. He suggested that the Secretariat appoint a staff member to deal with all States that had not submitted reports for technical reasons. The Chairman asked Mr. Rechetov to put together a draft decision or proposal in this regard.

Towards the end of the afternoon, Mr. Michael Parker Banton, Committee member from the United Kingdom, presented the Note by the Secretary-General on the eighth meeting of persons chairing the human rights treaty bodies, convened in Geneva in September 1997 (document A/52/507). The meeting was convened to discuss the effective implementation of international instruments on human rights, including reporting obligations. The chairpersons acknowledged that there were considerable challenges confronting the treaty bodies in order to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and coordination of their activities. No consensus was reached with regards to consolidating reports into a single global report covering all six human rights treaties, however, it was recognized that there might be a significant advantage in seeking ways by which to focus the report of each State party on a limited range of issues.

Moreover, Mr. Banton said the following issues, among other others, were discussed at the ninth meeting of persons chairing the human rights treaty bodies, held in February 1998: universal ratification, reservations to treaties, staff and servicing.

The panel of experts will reconvene at 10 p.m., Wednesday 11 March to hear the response of the Lebanese delegation.

Report of Lebanon

The thirteenth periodic report of Lebanon (document CERD/C/298/Add.2) states that prior to the constitutional amendments of 21 September 1990, there were two forms of confessionalism: confessionalism as to 'personal status' and 'political' confessionalism. The former means that everything affecting the family comes under the laws drawn up by the various communities under the authority of the State and the latter means that political and administrative posts are distributed among the various communities.

According to the report, the document of national understanding of 22 October 1989, also known as the Taif Agreement, called for the step-by-step elimination of political confessionalism. The amended article 95 of the Constitution states that 'the rule of confessional representation shall be replaced by specialization and competence in the public service, magistrature, the military and security institutions, and public and mixed undertaking'.

The report notes that the religious communities, (ie. Sunnites, Shi'ites, Druze, Alawites, Maronites, Greek Catholics, Greek Orthodox Evangelicals, Armenican Catholics, and Armenian Orthodox) should be classified as groups of families each with their own religious and cultural particularities. The religious system was originally intended to protect all the groups making up the Lebanese people and to ensure them all equal chances of development and progress. The report also states that there are more than 400,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon (nearly 20 per cent of all inhabitants), as well as Syrian, Egyptian, Sudanese, Ethiopian, Sri Lankan, Filipino, Indian and other workers.

Introduction of Report

Introducing the report, NABIL MAAMARI, Councilor to the Research and Documentation Centre at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Lebanon, said Lebanon was a unitary State and the community or religious systems in Lebanon had often been described as personal federalism. This system of religious communities fit into a system of representative democracy. A revision to the Constitution, promulgated in 1990, marked the step-by-step elimination of political confessionalism. At no point in history had Lebanon promoted or permitted the propagation on its territory of theories based on the superiority of a race or a group of persons of a particular colour or ethnic origin. Moreover, Lebanon engaged in no acts or practices of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions on its territory or abroad. The Ministry of Displaced Persons was set up to ensure the return of the displaced persons driven out between 1975 and 1990. This system fitted into a representative democracy.

Discussion of Report

Leading the discussion on the report of Lebanon, Committee expert IVAN GARVALOV said the report of Lebanon was a very interesting one because of the pertinent information provided in connection with its implementation of the Convention and because of its frank approach including, in some cases, straightforward admissions of difficulties and mistakes. Referring, among other things, to the civil war (1975 to 1990) and the illegal occupation of southern Lebanon and West Bekaa, he said few States parties were forced to go through such difficult times. The political crisis seemed to have been resolved and he welcomed the resumption of the dialogue with the Committee.
Mr. Garvalov noted that Lebanon was a unitary State and that various religious communities made up the Lebanese people. There was a discrepancy between the term unitary State and the fact that the Lebanese people were made up of various religious communities. More clarifications on this point were necessary.

The report stated that Armenians, Syriacs and Alawites had specific origins, Mr. Garvalov noted. Moreover, Greek Catholics and Orthodox were of Greek origin, whether or not they were followers of the Byzantine forms of worship and the same could be said of Armenian Catholics and Orthodox. Did this mean the State party recognized the existence of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals among the Lebanese society, he asked.

Mr. Garvalov pointed to the World Directory of Minorities which listed the following main minority groups in Lebanon: Ithna Ashari Shi'is, Syrian nationals, Sunni Muslims, Maronites, Palestinians, Druzes, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholics, Armenians, Alawis and Kurds. The same report also listed as immigrant communities the Syrians since 1976, the Palestinians, and the Kurds, who arrived from Syria in the late 50s and 60s. The Kurds, unlike the Arabic-speaking Syrians and Palestinians, spoke Kurdish and were undoubtedly ethnically different from the majority of the population.

Mr. Garvalov noted the constitutional amendments of September 1990 which had far reaching effects on the Lebanese society and would undoubtedly need a long time to be generally accepted. More information was requested on this and the resistance to the elimination of political confessionalism.

Pointing to a discrepancy in the report, Mr. Garvalov asked whether there were no acts or practices of racial discrimination, or whether the existence of prejudices, though rare, led to racial discrimination. He asked if the State party had taken measures to condemn racial discrimination and had undertaken to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms (article 2). It was very difficult to accept the two statements in the Lebanese report that the State did not have to implement article 2 of the Convention. Mr. Garvalov stressed that the Convention required States parties to adopt 'immediate and effective measures' to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which had the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination.
Mr. Garvalov asked whether Lebanon had undertaken to adopt measures to punish by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred and all acts of violence or incitement to such acts, and to declare illegal and prohibit organizations which promoted and incited racial discrimination.

Concerning the rights of Palestinian refugees as well as other foreign workers, Mr. Garvalov asked for more information on their right to be members of political parties, to choose and change jobs, to form trade unions, to education, health care and social services. Did the State provide them with effective remedies and appeal procedures for their grievances? He referred to the report of the United States Department of State on Human Rights Country Situations for 1997 which stated that Palestinians encountered job discrimination, and most were funnelled into unskilled occupations. The law applied to all aliens, but for political, cultural and economic reasons, it was applied in a manner disadvantageous to Palestinians and, to a lesser extent, Kurds.

On the security of persons and their protection against violence or bodily harm by public servants, Mr. Garvalov pointed to the report of the Human Rights Committee expressing concern about the broad scope of the jurisdiction of military courts in Lebanon, especially its extension beyond disciplinary matters and its applications to civilians.

More information was needed on the right to Lebanese nationality. In the overwhelming majority of cases the law on nationality applied without any hindrance, however, there were some cases, when the father was non-Lebanese and the mother was Lebanese, where the offspring could be discriminated against in respect of his or her right to Lebanese nationality.

Mr. Garvalov requested further information on the specific Lebanese laws which assured everyone effective protection and remedies against any act of racial discrimination and ensured the right to seek adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered. Examples of cases where victims claimed violations of their rights under the Convention were welcomed.

One Committee member pointed to the fact that political confessionalism forced persons to belong to a religious community to participate in public life. Participation of a person in an ethnic or racial group had to be based on individual choice. On the question of whether religious communities should be considered as ethnic groups, the distinction in the report between religious communities and minorities was not clear. The Armenians, Syriacs, Alawites and Greeks figured under religious communities as well as under the terms minorities.

Clarifications on whether the Lebanese Criminal Act prosecuted incidents of economic discrimination were needed, one expert said. Moreover, the affirmation that there was no notable case of infringement was not convincing. Lebanon, with a multi-cultural society, could not be free of discriminatory acts. This was not a positive sign, rather it raised doubts as to the efficiency of the courts. More information was therefore required on complaints, prosecution, and interventions made concerning acts of discrimination.

Other Committee members asked for additional information on, among other things, the situation of foreign workers; the right to all displaced persons to have their property restored to them or to receive compensation; the number of Palestinian refugees who had been naturalised over the last 5 to 6 years; and whether the Lebanese Government was intending to recognize the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals or groups of individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by that State Party of rights under the Convention.

Discussion of Saint Lucia

Committee member YURI RECHETOV opened consideration of the situation in Saint Lucia and said the country had not presented a report since it acceded to the Convention in 1990. To date, four reports were due and had not yet been submitted. Saint Lucia acquired independence in 1979 from French and British colonisation. It had a multi-party parliamentary democracy and was a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. There were some allegations to the effect that the police and prison authorities were violating human rights, however, these did not have any particular racial or ethnic character. In July 1996, the population numbered 157,862 persons and constituted of a majority of persons of African origin (93,6 per cent).

The Committee on several occasions looked into reasons why States did not submit reports. In the case of Saint Lucia, Mr. Rechetov said it seemed that the State did not have qualified personnel to submit the relevant reports. Moreover, as it never appeared on the international arena as the scene of ethnic conflict, Saint Lucia probably assumed that the submission of reports was not a matter of priority. There were many States which did not submit reports for technical reasons, and although there were often no serious cases of violation of the Convention, such non-reporting created a legal vacuum and was a violation of article 9. Mr. Rechetov suggested that the Secretariat appoint a staff member to deal with all States that had not submitted reports for technical reasons. The Chairman suggested Mr. Rechetov put together a draft decision or proposal in this regard.