CZECH REPUBLIC PRESENTS REPORT TO COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

CERD
63rd session
8 August 2003
Morning





The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has concluded its review of the fifth periodic report of the Czech Republic on how that country implements the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Introducing the report, Jan Jarab, Government Commissioner for Human Rights at the Office of the Government of the Czech Republic and the Head of the delegation, said the Czech Government remained committed to the goal of not merely suppressing all forms of racial discrimination, with particular emphasis on racially motivated crime, but also to the elimination or at least reduction of major socio-economic disadvantages faced by some groups. The Government was aware that apart from legislative change and the creation of coherent policies at the central level, there was an ever growing need to put in place effective instruments which would guarantee changes at the grassroots level, and translate international and national developments into real life.
Committee Experts including Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, the group’s country rapporteur for the report of the Czech Republic, raised a series of questions on such topics as double-discrimination, for example in the case of Roma women; whether the fall in the number of asylum seekers was linked to the events of 11 September and new anti-terrorism procedures; what mechanisms gave effect to the various measures protecting human rights; the importance of the measure of transferring the burden of proof of racist bias from the victim to the perpetrator; the alarming continuance of wide-ranging prejudice against the Roma to the point of ethnic, educational and social segregation; whether the lax attitude towards the repatriation of rejected asylum seekers was a good thing; and the need to cater for different needs and abilities in main-stream education.
Taking part in the debate were Committee Experts Mohamed Aly Thiam, Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr, Luis Valencia Rodriguez, Régis de Gouttes, Patrick Thornberry, Jose A. Lindgren Alves, Morten Kjaerum, Alexei S. Avtonomov, Kurt Herndl, Chengyuan Tang, Mario Jorge Yutzis, Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai, Nourredine Amir, Agha Shahi, Marc Bossuyt, and Ion Diaconu (Chairman speaking as Committee Expert).
Members of the delegation included Vit Schorm, Government Commissioner for Representation before the European Court for Human Rights, Ministry of Justice; Pavel Cink, Director, Department of Foreign Relations, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports; Ladislava Steinichová, Director, Department of Methodology and Administrative Proceedings, Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs; Radim Bures, Deputy-Director, Department for Crime Prevention, Ministry of the Interior; Martina Stepánkova, Office of the Government Commissioner for Human Rights, Office of the Government; Lukás Machon, Third Secretary of the Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva; and Petra Skopová, Desk Officer, Department of Human Rights, Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The Committee will deliver its conclusions and observations on the report of the Czech Republic towards the end of its session, which concludes on 22 August. In preliminary remarks, Mr. Sicilianos said there had been 23 groups of questions, most of which had been responded to in full and in depth. Some difficult choices had had to be made, and choices also. It was not difficult to express concerns, but resolving the problem and proposing solutions could be rather more difficult. A number of elements had been provided for the elaboration of final conclusions, since the dialogue had been of very high quality.
As one of the 169 States parties to the International Convention, the Czech Republic must present periodic reports to the Committee on efforts to eradicate such bias.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3:30 p.m. this afternoon, it will begin its consideration of the eleventh and twelfth reports of the Republic of Korea (CERD/C/426/Add.2).

Report of the Czech Republic
The fifth periodic report of the Czech Republic, contained in document (CERD/C/419/Add.1) describes progress in the field of human rights and in particular in the fight against racial discrimination. It contains details of the demographic structure of the population, including the demographic structure of the minorities in the Republic, of foreigners, and of refugees and asylum applicants.
The report further details compliance with articles 2 to 7 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, including legal and administrative measures applied to combat discrimination, particularly in the case of the Roma population of the Czech Republic, the prohibition of racial segregation and apartheid, legislative measures against proclamation of racial hatred and violence against racial and ethnic groups, the application of rights specifically guaranteed in the International Convention, including the right to equal treatment before the courts, the right to freedom and security of person and protection against violence and bodily harm, political rights, other civil rights, economic, social and cultural rights, protection against any acts of racial discrimination, and measures taken by the State in the area of education against discrimination, including human rights education at universities, the education of public officials, the education of the police, and a campaign against racism.

Introduction of Report
JAN JARAB, Government Commissioner for Human Rights at the Office of the Government of the Czech Republic and Head of the delegation, said it would undeniably be first and foremost the role of the Experts to evaluate the progress which the Czech Republic had made in some areas, or the lack thereof in others; and it would be impossible for him to provide that same degree of detached, objective appreciation of the matter. However, the Czech delegation could at least promise to continue addressing these difficult issues as frankly and candidly as had become its trademark.
Between the years 2000 and 2002, the Czech Government had repeatedly dealt with matters concerning the prevention of racial discrimination, and the position of ethnic minorities - in particular, the Roma - in society. Time since the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination discussed the last periodic report had seen several important steps forward. Taking into account practical needs as well as the Committee’s recommendations, the Government had taken forceful steps in the area of repression targeted at the perpetrators of racially motivated offences, and against political organizations which promoted a racist and/or neo-Nazi agenda.
Considerable development had occurred also in the area of prevention of discrimination, which was addressed by the Committee’s recommendations. However, the outcome was as yet uncertain for the discussions of the draft of an ambitious Anti-Discrimination Act. The bill was meeting stiff opposition on many levels from those who did not wish to accept that discrimination was a problem at all. The Act was designed to replace and complement the anti-discrimination clauses included in several existing laws, provide comprehensive definitions of discrimination, and create a system of assistance to victims, carried out by an independent Center for Equal Treatment.
The adoption of appropriate legislation did not in itself guarantee that racial discrimination would automatically be eliminated; the effective enforcement of such legislation would no doubt be a long-term process. Nor was it likely that full equality of members of ethnic minorities, let alone migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, could be achieved merely through the prohibition of discrimination, no matter how effectively enforced. In the Czech Republic, it had become increasingly recognized over the last few years on the level of central Government that particularly one group, the Roma, were burdened with many historically conditioned disadvantages, which did require the creation of targeted positive policies, several of which existing policies had been continued and enlarged over the last years. There was also a recognized need for broader policies that would have an in-built sensitivity to different needs and cultural backgrounds of various ethnic groups. While progress was being made in various areas, other developments created new challenges in the struggle against racism, discrimination and intolerance, and the Government was facing new challenges of finding strategies to persuade partners not to pursue a dangerous and socially irresponsible course.
The Czech Government remained committed to the goal of not merely suppressing all forms of racial discrimination, with particular emphasis on racially motivated crime, but also to the elimination or at least reduction of major socio-economic disadvantages faced by some groups, notably the Roma. The Government was aware that apart from legislative change and the creation of coherent policies on the central level, there was an ever-growing need to put in place effective instruments which would guarantee changes on the grassroots level, and translate international and national developments into real life. This commitment to eliminate racial discrimination was perceived as one of the country’s priorities in the field of human rights, and was receiving adequate attention.

Questions by Experts
LINOS-ALEXANDRE SICILIANOS, Committee Expert who served as country rapporteur for the report of the Czech Republic, said he wished to congratulate the delegation on the excellent report submitted. The report was dense, frank, and self-critical, and the Czech Republic was clearly aware of its problems, and did not either wish to avoid or hide them, but was seeking actively solutions in many different ways. The report showed the Government’s will to make progress.
The first part of the report concerned the general demographic structure of the Republic. Firstly, as regards the number of Roma living in the Republic, there was a gap between census data and official Government data as well as with official Roma figures. There was a historic reason for this. With regard to asylum seekers, there had been a sharp fall. What were the new conditions to asylum, he asked, and were these linked to the new more stringent policies, or also was it linked to the events of 11 September and new anti-terrorism procedures.
Further, the distinction between traditional and non-traditional minorities was queried, and what were the benefits for the “traditional” minorities. With regard to the difficulties on the adoption of the global anti-discriminatory law, it was noted that it was a law that followed both the recommendations of the Committee and of the European Union, and it was hoped that the law would be adopted in conformity with the International Convention as soon as possible. There were a series of bodies for the protection of human rights, and there was a need for more detail on the division of responsibilities between these bodies.
Further issues of concern were the recourse to justice for those who had suffered from discrimination, and what provisions, for example legal aid, were available for those persons. Did the law on public associations allow for prosecution of individuals who had participated in the activities of those associations, specifically in the case of racist organizations, he asked. There was a need to also indicate whether police officers could be convicted of racist offenses.
With regard to economic and social rights, the labour code prohibited discrimination, but did not define discrimination as direct or indirect, and there was no provision for compensation for victims. There was a gap here that needed to be filled. There was also a need to avoid double-discrimination, for example in the case of Roma women. There was a parallel need to end social exclusion and reintegrate all Roma into society.
A number of laws prohibited acts that incited racial discrimination, but the report itself noted that many victims had very little protection from such acts, and this was of concern. The Czech Republic needed to step up its provisions to provide effective solutions and redress to these victims, ideally without them having to bear the burden of proof.
Other members of the Committee also raised various issues, asking, among other things, questions relative to such topics as people living illegally in the Czech Republic, and refugees living in the country since the 1990s; what mechanisms gave effect to the various measures protecting human rights; what penal rules existed for those found guilty judicially of racial discrimination; why the Special Schools existed for the Roma, since this was contrary to the theory of integration; the alleged forced sterilization of Roma women against their consent in the past; the need to ensure the required level of coordination between all human rights bodies with regard to the protection of minorities, the Roma in particular, and what action these bodies took; the prohibition of Nazi organizations and their propaganda; the importance of the measure of transferring the burden of proof of racist bias from the victim to the perpetrator; the alarming continuance of wide-ranging prejudice against the Roma to the point of ethnic, educational and social segregation; and the proposed Anti-Discrimination Act.
The Committee also noted the excellent quality of the report, particularly its impressive level of frankness.

Discussion
Responding to the questions, MR. JARAB said that with regard to the issue of the low number of persons who were identified as members of the Roma national or ethnic identity in the census, this was possibly due to various factors, including that that column was not obligatory to fill in, and that many of those people who did not claim Roma national identity were those who were less integrated into society and into mainstream categories of thought that divided people by nationality. Those who had identified themselves as Roma were more likely to be integrated and to have this concept, as opposed to the concept of citizenship. It was due mainly to a lack of understanding of the meaning of the category, he said.
With regard to the advisory bodies to the Government, their independence, and their linkage to other bodies, it was important to note that neither the Council for Human Rights, the Council for Minorities, nor the Council for the Roma had anything to do with complaints and their evaluation, as these were advisory bodies on policies and drafting legislation. They were independent as half the members were representatives of civil society.
Unlike many other issues where the Government of the Czech Republic did admit that there was a discrepancy between Governmental intentions and actual realities, the issue of the alleged sterilisation of Roma women had no supporting evidence, not even a single concrete case that had been brought to the attention of the Government or any relevant institution. The Czech Republic could therefore not be blamed for not investigating this issue.
The drop in the number of asylum seekers over the last two years following the amendment to the Asylum Act was not related to security issues linked to the events of 11 September and its aftermath. The major difference following the amendment was that asylum seekers could not work until they had been in the country for a year. Those rejected often applied in another country in Western Europe. The Czech Republic was often strict in awarding asylum, but compensated for this by being soft in terms of the rarity of deportations of those rejected for asylum.
Roma community housing projects did not necessarily constitute a form of segregation, since separation of this community did not appear to work in practice. There was a need to accept the residential separation, and focus on providing services on the spot, such as schools that were not necessarily Special Schools, but were community schools in areas where there was already a residential aggregation of Roma.
The delegation said that with regard to the draft Bill to Ensure Equal Treatment and Protection Against Discrimination, this provided for the right to equal treatment and protection against any discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, creed or religion, language, political or other opinion, national origin, membership in political parties or movements, trade unions or other associations, social origin, property, marital and family status, family duties or other status. It further provided for rights and obligations of natural persons and legal entities ensuing from the right to equal treatment and protection against discrimination; the terms, conditions and extent of claims based on any violation of the obligations under this law; the extent to which any unequal treatment shall not be deemed a discrimination; and the terms and conditions for the implementation of positive action. The draft bill applied to both public and private persons, and aimed to ensure equal treatment and protection against discrimination in all areas covered by the Race Directive. Under the draft bill, a person whose right to equal treatment had been violated was entitled to seek protection against discrimination before the court.
Another key issue raised by the Committee was that of education of the children of the Roma, and the over-representation of these children in Special Schools, and this was a very complex issue, the delegation said. The Government tried to ensure equal access for all to education, but the question was how to do this. There was a need to cope with complex issues, such as the social backgrounds of these children, and some differences between them and the majority population, since there were different attitudes towards planning, and a different system of values, notably displayed in the attitude towards education. This sometimes meant that the children were disadvantaged in their educational career. The Government was not happy with this, but this was the reality. Work was being carried out on improving the situation by, for example, organizing preparatory classes for children from disadvantaged social backgrounds in order to prepare them for their life as citizens of the Czech Republic.
Special Schools were not necessarily children for Roma children; they had existed since the nineteenth century for children with special educational needs. The disproportionate representation of the Roma children in these schools was neither a policy nor an aim of the Government, and it was deplored. The problem was the educational disadvantage of Roma children, and it was acknowledged that because many of them were in these Special Schools, this perhaps contributed to the problem. However, there was a need for special treatment for many of these children, due to their situation. As for employment of the Roma, there were many problems with this issue.
With regard to the extremist phenomenon, this appeared to be mostly derived from German political concepts exhibiting elements of intolerance. Rightwing extremism was mainly inspired by inciting racial and ethnic intolerance, and expressing this in a violent manner. Leftwing extremists were usually linked to anarchists and anti-globalists. The Government was determined to dissolve all such associations. The activities of an individual or a group which disseminated racist or discriminatory information or committed acts in this context were punished judicially.
Committee Experts then asked further questions and made comments on varied topics, including on religious education in State schools; special language rights for traditional and historical minorities; whether the lax attitude towards repatriation of rejected asylum seekers was a good thing; policies that had a segregative effect, although this was not the intention of the policy; the need to cater for different needs and abilities in main-stream education; the attitude of the Czech Government towards usury in Roma society; the need to listen to the Roma and not to put them in a vacuum; respect for the individual and individual choices within and without the context of the group; the apparently pessimistic attitude of the delegation towards the Roma and their future; whether there were many asylum seekers from the Roma minority of the Czech Republic in Great Britain; and the punishment of police officers for having neglected their duties and the responsibilities of the body which oversaw such issues.
Responding, the delegation said religion was not taught formally in schools. Very few leftist activists were denied entry to Czech territory, unless these persons had been convicted of violent acts. Language rights were an issue under discussion, and one particular minority had its own schools. Elsewhere, groups were never large enough to make it possible to have separate classes. Moving beyond discrimination to integration was an aim of several programmes and policies. The Czech Republic was a homogenous country that found it difficult to be flexible on such issues, and the autocratic history of Governments of the past made it even more difficult. Work had been done in concert with the Roma to improve their situation, but there had to be an understanding from the majority, who might not be so sensitive to the plight as they could be, particularly in the context of the historical perception of this minority. The Government subscribed intensely to the concept and need of including the Roma in the conception of programmes intended for them, and to the need to listen to their views in general.
Responding further, with regard to refugees and the non-deportation of rejected asylum seekers, the delegation said that the Government of the Czech Republic was aware of a certain problem deriving from this, but in most cases people usually returned voluntarily, or continued on their way to other countries, and very few stayed permanently. Much remained to be done in the area of the training of the judiciary to be more sensitive to minority matters. What drove the Roma to become refugees in Great Britain were factors of a mainly socio-economic nature, although there were of course issues of discrimination reported.

Concluding Remarks by Delegation
In concluding remarks, Mr. JARAB, the Head of the delegation of the Czech Republic, thanked the Committee for the extremely interesting dialogue, and asked whether it would be appropriate for the Czech Republic to present its next report with the seventh report, rather than as originally scheduled in the near future.

Preliminary Remarks
In preliminary remarks, Mr. SICILIANOS, the Rapporteur for the report of the Czech Republic, said the dialogue had been most constructive. There had been 23 groups of questions, most of which had been responded to in full and in depth. Some difficult choices had had to be made, and choices also. It was not difficult to express concerns, but resolving the problem and proposing solutions could be rather more difficult. The Plan of Action drafted in response to the Durban Conference was anticipated with interest. With regards to the Draft Law on Racial Discrimination, there was an extremely complex explanation of its contents, but it was welcomed and its implementation looked forward to. Training of judges and the police was an extremely important issue, and perhaps elements needed to be stepped up. A number of elements had been provided for the elaboration of final conclusions, since the dialogue had been of very high quality.



* *** *