Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
15 March 2000
Share
15 March 2000
Afternoon
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this afternoon started its consideration of an initial report presented by the Government of Estonia on how it was implementing the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Introducing her country's report, Karin Jaani, Head of the Foreign Relations Department of Estonia's Parliament, said that one of the major challenges that Estonia faced today was the integration of its sizable non-Estonian community into the society. The country followed a consistent inclusive policy to integrate non-Estonians, she added.
Mario Jorge Yutsis, the Committee expert who served as country rapporteur to the report of Estonia, said the amount of exigencies to obtain Estonian citizenship was enormous; among the many requirements to obtain citizenship, fluency in the Estonian language seemed to be an impediment. Also, residents with weak knowledge of the Estonian language had less opportunity to find jobs, he said.
Other Committee members also commented on the report, focusing on the lack of a clear Government policy concerning the large number of Russians living in Estonia who were stateless in the country they were born and grew up in.
In addition to Mrs. Jaani, the Estonian delegation was made up of Gea Rennel, from the Political Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Marten Kokk, Counsellor to the Secretary of State; Riina Pihel and Mai Hion, of the Human Rights Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and Merike Kokajev, First Secretary at the Permanent Mission of Estonia to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
Also taking part in the discussion were Committee members Ion Diaconu, Luis Valencia Rodirguez, Regis de Gouttes, Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai, Yuri A. Rechetov, Peter Nobel and Brun-Otto Bryde.
Estonia is among the 155 States parties to the Convention and as such it must provide the Committee with periodic summaries of its efforts to implement the provisions of the treaty.
Before adjourning its afternoon meeting, the Committee briefly discussed its draft concluding observations on the report of France which it considered last week. The final version of the draft will be issued towards the end of the Committee's three-week session, which will conclude on 24 March.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 17 March, it will continue its consideration of the Estonian report.
Report of Estonia
The initial, second, third and fourth periodic reports of Estonia (document CERD/C/329/Add.2) enumerate the administrative and legislative measures taken by the Government to comply with the terms of the Convention. The report provides information on how the Government has attempted to implement the different articles of the Convention. Under article 2 of the Convention, the report says that racial discrimination is prohibited on grounds of race, nationality, sex or language, among others. It affirms that incitement of hatred, violence or discrimination was punishable by law.
The report also gives a full description of the rights to be enjoyed by citizens and foreigners. It says that the right to liberty of movement was guaranteed for both citizens and foreigners. It also lists the various ethnic groups living in Estonia, with Russians being the largest national minority among the 100 minorities.
Presentation of Report
KARIN JAANI, Head of the Foreign Relations Department of Estonia’s Parliament, said that large-scale legal, economic, social and political developments had taken place in the country which were aimed at meeting Estonia's international obligations. Since the submission of the current report, many other important measures had also been taken with the aim of effectively implementing the provisions of the Convention.
Mrs. Jaani said one of the major challenges that Estonia faced today was the integration of its sizable non-Estonian community into the society. The country followed a consistent inclusive policy to integrate non-Estonians. The cornerstone of Estonia's integration policy was the implementation of the national integration programme which pertained to a significant reduction in the number of persons with undetermined citizenship.
In addition, the Government had provided financial support for the implementation of various activities promoting integration, Mrs. Jaani said. Several international programmes financed by the European Union, the United Nations Development Programme and the Nordic countries supported integration-related projects.
Mrs. Jaani told the Committee that a new Legal Chancellor Act had been put in place with the functions of the Ombudsman. Under the new act, everybody had a direct recourse to the Legal Chancellor to supervise the activities of state agencies, including the guarantee of constitutional rights.
MARIO JORGE YUTSIS, the Committee expert who served as country rapporteur to the report of Estonia, said that the creation of the Office of the Ombudsman was an important element in the report of Estonia. He noted that the country had a multi-cultural society, which the Estonian Constitution had to yet acknowledge in its preamble. As the report recognized, Estonia's territory was a habitat for more than one hundred nationalities.
The report underlined the issue of cultural autonomy, Mr. Yutsis said. Paragraph 64, for example, stated that national minorities were those which lived in Estonian territory and had Estonian citizenship. He asked the delegation to further explain that definition.
With regard to the rights of foreigners, Mr. Yutsis said paragraph 136 of the report said that the law established that the annual immigration quota should not exceed 0.05 per cent of the permanent population of Estonia. According to the report, this did not apply to the citizens of the European Union, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. In that case, the Estonian law was discriminatory. The delegation was requested to explain why such a discriminatory law was in force.
The amount of exigencies to obtain Estonian citizenship was enormous, Mr. Yutsis said. Among the many requirements to obtain Estonian citizenship, fluency in Estonian language seemed to be an impediment to start the process. The lack of fluency of the language was also an obstacle in the field of employment. Those residents with weak knowledge of the Estonian language had less opportunity to find jobs.
About 200,000 stateless person lived in Estonia and their situation remained unchanged since they were declared stateless, Mr. Yutsis said. The Government had to solve the problem, at least by giving citizenship to those children born on Estonian soil.
What efforts had the Estonian Government made so that the Russian- speaking community, which was quite a large one, had access to information in its own mother tongue, Mr. Yutsis asked. The Government should guarantee that each community received information through the media in its respective languages.
Other Committee members also commented on the report. Many experts expressed concern about the situation of the Russian-speaking community, particularly about the enjoyment of its full rights within Estonian society. The restriction of immigration rights to certain nationals and the fixing of a quota system was also seen by many experts to be discriminatory.
Estonia was asked if it intended to recognize the competence of the Committee in receiving individual communications.
Under the Soviet Union, many Russian-speakers lived in Estonia, an expert said. After the establishment of a separate Estonian State, many of the Russians were left without a national status. Although Russians in Estonia desired to obtain Estonian citizenship, they had to pass through a rigid and narrow process as well as a quota system.
The Government of Estonia had fixed a quota system in its immigration policies and had made it clear that it would accept Europeans and not "others", another expert commented, adding that the assertion amounted to xenophobia and racism. According to the report, only 24 persons were accepted as refugees in Estonia. The expert asked about the fate of a number of asylum-seekers who took refuge in the country.
An expert said that Estonia's report could not be considered without looking atthe country's history. That was especially true for the relationship between citizens and non-citizens, and between the majority population and minorities. The term alien was not very satisfactory for people who had been born in Estonia and had been legal residents when Estonia was part of the Soviet Union. Suddenly, after the creation of the separate State of Estonia, they found themselves alien in their country.
Preliminary Observations and Recommendations
The Committee started consideration of its preliminary observations and recommendations on the report of France, which it adopted on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. In the introduction, the Committee welcomed the reports submitted by France. It regretted, however, that the reports were submitted only in August 1998, although the twelfth report was due on 27 August 1994.
Among positive aspects in the reports, the Committee noted with satisfaction that the Government had acted with vigour in the suppression of speech and publications likely to incite racial hatred.
* *** *
Afternoon
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this afternoon started its consideration of an initial report presented by the Government of Estonia on how it was implementing the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Introducing her country's report, Karin Jaani, Head of the Foreign Relations Department of Estonia's Parliament, said that one of the major challenges that Estonia faced today was the integration of its sizable non-Estonian community into the society. The country followed a consistent inclusive policy to integrate non-Estonians, she added.
Mario Jorge Yutsis, the Committee expert who served as country rapporteur to the report of Estonia, said the amount of exigencies to obtain Estonian citizenship was enormous; among the many requirements to obtain citizenship, fluency in the Estonian language seemed to be an impediment. Also, residents with weak knowledge of the Estonian language had less opportunity to find jobs, he said.
Other Committee members also commented on the report, focusing on the lack of a clear Government policy concerning the large number of Russians living in Estonia who were stateless in the country they were born and grew up in.
In addition to Mrs. Jaani, the Estonian delegation was made up of Gea Rennel, from the Political Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Marten Kokk, Counsellor to the Secretary of State; Riina Pihel and Mai Hion, of the Human Rights Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and Merike Kokajev, First Secretary at the Permanent Mission of Estonia to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
Also taking part in the discussion were Committee members Ion Diaconu, Luis Valencia Rodirguez, Regis de Gouttes, Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai, Yuri A. Rechetov, Peter Nobel and Brun-Otto Bryde.
Estonia is among the 155 States parties to the Convention and as such it must provide the Committee with periodic summaries of its efforts to implement the provisions of the treaty.
Before adjourning its afternoon meeting, the Committee briefly discussed its draft concluding observations on the report of France which it considered last week. The final version of the draft will be issued towards the end of the Committee's three-week session, which will conclude on 24 March.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 17 March, it will continue its consideration of the Estonian report.
Report of Estonia
The initial, second, third and fourth periodic reports of Estonia (document CERD/C/329/Add.2) enumerate the administrative and legislative measures taken by the Government to comply with the terms of the Convention. The report provides information on how the Government has attempted to implement the different articles of the Convention. Under article 2 of the Convention, the report says that racial discrimination is prohibited on grounds of race, nationality, sex or language, among others. It affirms that incitement of hatred, violence or discrimination was punishable by law.
The report also gives a full description of the rights to be enjoyed by citizens and foreigners. It says that the right to liberty of movement was guaranteed for both citizens and foreigners. It also lists the various ethnic groups living in Estonia, with Russians being the largest national minority among the 100 minorities.
Presentation of Report
KARIN JAANI, Head of the Foreign Relations Department of Estonia’s Parliament, said that large-scale legal, economic, social and political developments had taken place in the country which were aimed at meeting Estonia's international obligations. Since the submission of the current report, many other important measures had also been taken with the aim of effectively implementing the provisions of the Convention.
Mrs. Jaani said one of the major challenges that Estonia faced today was the integration of its sizable non-Estonian community into the society. The country followed a consistent inclusive policy to integrate non-Estonians. The cornerstone of Estonia's integration policy was the implementation of the national integration programme which pertained to a significant reduction in the number of persons with undetermined citizenship.
In addition, the Government had provided financial support for the implementation of various activities promoting integration, Mrs. Jaani said. Several international programmes financed by the European Union, the United Nations Development Programme and the Nordic countries supported integration-related projects.
Mrs. Jaani told the Committee that a new Legal Chancellor Act had been put in place with the functions of the Ombudsman. Under the new act, everybody had a direct recourse to the Legal Chancellor to supervise the activities of state agencies, including the guarantee of constitutional rights.
MARIO JORGE YUTSIS, the Committee expert who served as country rapporteur to the report of Estonia, said that the creation of the Office of the Ombudsman was an important element in the report of Estonia. He noted that the country had a multi-cultural society, which the Estonian Constitution had to yet acknowledge in its preamble. As the report recognized, Estonia's territory was a habitat for more than one hundred nationalities.
The report underlined the issue of cultural autonomy, Mr. Yutsis said. Paragraph 64, for example, stated that national minorities were those which lived in Estonian territory and had Estonian citizenship. He asked the delegation to further explain that definition.
With regard to the rights of foreigners, Mr. Yutsis said paragraph 136 of the report said that the law established that the annual immigration quota should not exceed 0.05 per cent of the permanent population of Estonia. According to the report, this did not apply to the citizens of the European Union, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. In that case, the Estonian law was discriminatory. The delegation was requested to explain why such a discriminatory law was in force.
The amount of exigencies to obtain Estonian citizenship was enormous, Mr. Yutsis said. Among the many requirements to obtain Estonian citizenship, fluency in Estonian language seemed to be an impediment to start the process. The lack of fluency of the language was also an obstacle in the field of employment. Those residents with weak knowledge of the Estonian language had less opportunity to find jobs.
About 200,000 stateless person lived in Estonia and their situation remained unchanged since they were declared stateless, Mr. Yutsis said. The Government had to solve the problem, at least by giving citizenship to those children born on Estonian soil.
What efforts had the Estonian Government made so that the Russian- speaking community, which was quite a large one, had access to information in its own mother tongue, Mr. Yutsis asked. The Government should guarantee that each community received information through the media in its respective languages.
Other Committee members also commented on the report. Many experts expressed concern about the situation of the Russian-speaking community, particularly about the enjoyment of its full rights within Estonian society. The restriction of immigration rights to certain nationals and the fixing of a quota system was also seen by many experts to be discriminatory.
Estonia was asked if it intended to recognize the competence of the Committee in receiving individual communications.
Under the Soviet Union, many Russian-speakers lived in Estonia, an expert said. After the establishment of a separate Estonian State, many of the Russians were left without a national status. Although Russians in Estonia desired to obtain Estonian citizenship, they had to pass through a rigid and narrow process as well as a quota system.
The Government of Estonia had fixed a quota system in its immigration policies and had made it clear that it would accept Europeans and not "others", another expert commented, adding that the assertion amounted to xenophobia and racism. According to the report, only 24 persons were accepted as refugees in Estonia. The expert asked about the fate of a number of asylum-seekers who took refuge in the country.
An expert said that Estonia's report could not be considered without looking atthe country's history. That was especially true for the relationship between citizens and non-citizens, and between the majority population and minorities. The term alien was not very satisfactory for people who had been born in Estonia and had been legal residents when Estonia was part of the Soviet Union. Suddenly, after the creation of the separate State of Estonia, they found themselves alien in their country.
Preliminary Observations and Recommendations
The Committee started consideration of its preliminary observations and recommendations on the report of France, which it adopted on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. In the introduction, the Committee welcomed the reports submitted by France. It regretted, however, that the reports were submitted only in August 1998, although the twelfth report was due on 27 August 1994.
Among positive aspects in the reports, the Committee noted with satisfaction that the Government had acted with vigour in the suppression of speech and publications likely to incite racial hatred.
* *** *