Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
14 August 2000
Share
CESCR
23rd session
14 August 2000
Afternoon
Representatives of United Nations specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) this afternoon briefed members of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights about the situation of the enjoyment of those rights in countries that the committee experts will be examining during its current session.
Several representatives of NGOs critiqued the reports forwarded to the Committee by Sudan, Jordan and Australia, charging that the documents glossed over or ignored shortcomings in their compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
NGOs alleged that economic reforms in Jordan, for example, had increased the price of essential products -- like milk, sugar and bread -- while unemployment had increased significantly at the same time. The Government of Sudan, another NGO charged, had withheld food to people in famine-stricken regions in an effort to starve out rebels in rebel-held areas. And in Australia, NGOs levelled accusations that while the country was enjoying economic success, indigenous peoples were discriminated against and did not enjoy the same living standards as other Australians.
Committee experts also heard from a representative of UNESCO who briefed the members on the results of the World Education Forum. Further, a representative of the United Nations Development Programme told the members that UNDP was studying the effectiveness of the implementation of the Committee's recommendations to countries.
The NGOs addressing the Committee were the Jordan Society for Human Rights, Habitat International Coalition, FIAN International, the Victorian Council of Social Services, the Foundation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research Action, the Kingsford Legal Centre, the Australia Social and Economic Rights Project, the Sovereign Union of Aboriginal Peoples of Australia, the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, Women Rights Action Network Australia, Contextos Latinoamericanos, and Inclusion International.
The discussion took place on the opening day of the Committee's twenty-third session. During the three-week meeting, the Committee will consider reports filed by Sudan, Jordan, Australia and Kyrgyzstan. There were no statements made on the situation in Kyrgyzstan.
When the Committee reconvenes on Tuesday, 15 August, at 10 a.m., it will hear the presentation of the second periodic report of Jordan.
Discussion
KISHORE SINGH, UNESCO, said what was most significant at the dawn of the twenty-first century was that, with renewed vision, a great impetus was being given by way of the global endeavour to the realization of the right to education in the wake of the World Education Forum. Culminating the Education for All decade, the Forum showcased evolving constitutional frameworks, national legislation and policies, and the progress that had been made in implementing education development policies and programmes.
The outcome of the forum, called the Dakar Framework for Action Education for All, recognized the critical role of education in empowering individuals and transforming societies, considering education as the key to sustainable development and peace and stability within and among countries. A singular achievement of the Dakar Framework was that it reaffirmed that education was a fundamental human right.
TONE SKAUG, United Nations Development Programme, said the focus of UNDP was at country and programme level. UNDP Geneva recently had decided to study the effectiveness of this Committee's concluding observations. The feedback that was expected to be received hopefully would provide some guidance.
On Jordan
ABAD MURAD, Jordan Society for Human Rights, said a parallel report was prepared to the Government's report, and it depended on sources, daily and weekly newspaper clips from 1997 to 2000, and the Centre of Strategic Studies at Jordan University, amongst others. There was economic deterioration in Jordan, caused by economic reforms which began in 1992. The price of bread had risen by 50 per cent, and other consumer products, like sugar, rice and milk, had risen by up to 60 per cent. One-third of the population fell below the poverty line. Another major outcome was the increase in the unemployment rates -- the Government estimated it was 15 per cent while some NGOs had estimated it at between 27.5 and 35 per cent. This represented a major threat to the health and nutrition of the Jordanian people, especially to the most vulnerable members of society -- women and children. That had led to higher divorce rates and increased crime rates. The authorities authorized arrests and attacks on journalists, affecting freedom of expression.
There were many acts of intimidation against influential figures. The Government also attempted to halt the distribution of books, newspapers and magazines.
JOSEPH SCHECHLA, Habitat International Coalition, said the Government of Jordan reported that there was no discrimination against foreign workers. But an NGO report detailed how foreign workers did not have full participation in trade union activities and within the social security system. Also in social security, there were four types of benefits that had not yet been implemented, but Jordanian workers were still paying for them. There had been a drop in the amount of people who had access to health care. The Government reported that it was studying the issue. These were just a few examples that contradicted the Government's report.
On Sudan
ALISON GRAHAM, FIAN International, said the Sudanese Government, in its own report, failed to address the right to adequate food. It did not document how people's access to food was being respected, protected and fulfilled. According to international human rights law, food should never be used as an instrument of political manipulation or pressure. But this had been done in Sudan, and this had helped lead to the presence of famine in the country. The 1998 famine was the product of human action, human rights watchers had concluded. Cattle had been stolen and crops had been burned. There had been massive human displacement. The UN predicted, in 1998, that many people were at risk of starvation. In August 1998, the projected figure was one million people. The implementation of such tactics was not exclusive to any one region in Sudan.
There was also the manipulation of food aid. A State party should demonstrate that it had used all the resources at its disposal, and that included seeking international support. But the Government had clearly not complied with its obligations. In fact, in had obstructed the efforts of the international relief community. The Government believed that by cutting off relief to rebel-held areas, the rebels could be starved out.
On Australia
ANNIE PETTITT, Victorian Council of Social Services, said Australian NGOs had a number of key concerns about continuing economic, social and cultural disadvantages in Australia. The majority of the population enjoyed high standards of living and had ready access to employment, social and cultural pursuits. However, for a significant number of people, this was not the case. It was disturbing that the Government's report did not identify a number of important issues affecting these groups. First and foremost was the well-documented, systemic discrimination suffered on an ongoing basis by indigenous peoples with respect to every right in the Covenant. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had suffered from poor health, and had levels of education and living standards that were vastly lower than those enjoyed by the general population.
There were grave concerns about recent changes to the industrial relations system that disadvantaged low-income workers and undermined the maintenance of minimum adequate conditions of work and remuneration. There had been huge reductions in public funding for housing assistance despite ever-growing numbers on public housing waiting lists. Human rights education was not included in the core curriculum of any State or Territory, but was left to the discretion of individual schools. Australia was an affluent country with increasing living standards enjoyed by some sections of the community. But inequality had increased dramatically, which was most stark in relation to the living standards and life chances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
NEVA COLLINGS, Foundation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research Action, said in recent years, there had been a winding back of policies by the Federal Government regarding the right to self-determination which had serious implications for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights of indigenous peoples. In 1991, Parliament gave unanimous support for the establishment of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. The enabling legislation included a sunset clause winding up the activities of the Council after 10 years. At the time, it was assumed by the Government of the day that 10 years would be enough time to be reconciled. But in light of the present Federal Government's refusal to support elements of the Declaration of Reconciliation, launched on 27 May 2000 as the culmination of the Council's activities, it was clear the work of the Council was not finished yet.
ANNA CODY, Kingsford Legal Centre, said the Australian Government acknowledged that under the justification of the assimilation of indigenous peoples into white society, many indigenous children were taken from their families. The aim of the policy was to breed out "Aboriginality" and to assimilate Aborigines into the social and economic structure of the white community. The effects of this genocidal policy which lasted from the 1880s to the 1970s were still ongoing. Whole communities had been affected, and it was not possible to estimate accurately how many children were forcibly removed from their homes as many records were destroyed. A national inquiry was held into the separation of indigenous children from their families. It made numerous recommendations. Most of them had not been implemented by the Australian Government. Many community and human rights groups had called for the establishment of a Reparations Tribunal. The Tribunal would award compensation as well as keep records, recording the history orally and linking up families again.
MELISSA COAD, Australian Social and Economic Rights Project, said since 4 March 1997, newly arrived permanent residents had to wait two years before being able to access Social Security benefits, other than the Family benefit. Family Payment was a supplemental payment to assist in the cost of raising children and was not a substantive income support payment. Before 4 March, the waiting period was six months and did not include the safety net payment Special Benefit. Special Benefit was payable to people in financial hardship, unable to earn a sufficient livelihood and not eligible for any other Social Security payment. Anecdotal evidence suggested that administrators had taken a very restrictive view of this provision, making Special Benefit in all practicality difficult to obtain. There had been instances where people in extreme hardship had been discouraged from even lodging a claim form for Special Benefit. Lodgement of a claim and subsequent rejection was necessary before the claimant could initiate an appeal against the decision not to pay. When claims were rejected, claimants had to pursue an often lengthy and humiliating appeals process. The process compromised a number of levels of appeals and could sometimes take many months to resolve, leaving the claimant without income support in the meantime.
ELEANOR GILBERT, Sovereign Union of Aboriginal Peoples of Australia, said three successive sessions of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination had placed Australia on the early warning urgent action procedure, due to racially discriminatory legislation in many areas, including land and the failure to federally implement legislation. Last month, the Human Rights Committee released its concluding observations on Australia and listed the attempts by the Government to avoid tackling the issue of self-determination as a principle area of concern. In November, the Government would be before the Committee against Torture, and later, the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Meanwhile, on 4 August, the High Court of Australia confirmed there was no domestic law against genocide. Domestic remedies were exhausted. What remedies were there in the United Nations?
LEILANI FARHA, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, said the common perception was that Australia was a country with few housing problems. Unfortunately, that was not the story. The Government had undertaken a major redirection in low-income housing which focused more on the private market rather than the public system. The Government recognized that low-income households could not always compete in the private market, and pointed to a few of its policies -- including a rental assistance programme. What the report did not say was that it dramatically reduced the amount of money it was spending on housing for low-income people. It dropped by $334 million since 1996. The end result was that fewer low-income Australians than ever before could access housing, and waiting lists, already long, were growing longer. The average Australian household was fortunate enough to pay only 13 per cent of its income on housing costs. But for the poorest citizens of Australia, the number grew to about 65 per cent. For many, the private market was simply not an option.
CLANCY KELLY, Women's Rights Action Network Australia (WRANA), said the context of WRANA's concerns was the globalization of free market economic policies during the 1990s, which had resulted in diminished social spending, privatization of many public sector functions and the deregulation of labour markets around the world. In Australia, as in other western democracies, there had been a major reconfiguration of the relationship between the State and the individual. These changes were initiated by the Labour Government of the 1980s and the early 1990s, but the election of the conservative government in March 1996 marked the end of efforts to ameliorate the inequities produced by the inefficiencies of the market state. From a gender perspective, the social transformations won by the women's movement of the 1970s and 1980s had been hollowed out by the redirection of funds and policies that showed little respect for what made life possible for most women. A shadow report prepared by WRANA expressed concern that the new market-driven regulatory state impacted disproportionately on women's enjoyment of economic and social rights, expanding their responsibilities in the area of unpaid work, reducing their access to social services and increasing their vulnerability to exploitation in the paid workforce.
General Statements
ANTIGUAR VARGAS, Contextos Latino Americanos, said it would never be sufficient to simply complain about violations of human rights. The prospects of overcoming this situation were not good -- a worsening with the respect of human rights had been seen. Many crimes had been avoided thanks to several organizations which put itself in harms way. A broad mobilization had to be continued from a diverse collection of groups. Latin America had seen its share of violations of rights. There was a great difference between the wealthy and the impoverished there. Many people did not have access to adequate housing, could not afford important medicines, and did not have a glimmer of hope of getting into the most basic aspects of education. Experience had shown that only mobilization of society could stop and reverse this trend. These basic needs must be met, and the necessary political and legal tools needed to be put in place.
NANCY BREITENBACH, Inclusion International, said significant progress had been made in improving the lives of people with disabilities. A number of Governments had issued legislation, and others were on the verge of doing so. This Committee, in 1994, adopted General Comment No. 5, which promoted the rights of persons with disabilities. Nevertheless, in practice, people with disabilities continued to be marginalized, in particular, people with intellectual disabilities. Often they were institutionalized, taken away from family life, educational opportunities, and employment opportunities. The World Health Organization had estimated the number of intellectually disabled people to be 60 million, with the number expected to reach 100 million in the years to come. They were the most likely to be deprived of education, which in turn would lead them into poverty.
JOSEPH SCHECHLA, Habitat International Coalition, said follow up measures to the Committee reports were important aspects of this Committee's work. In the last review of Israel, the concluding observations called on it to provide additional information within a deadline. The information concerned the implementation of the concluding observations, including law reform. That deadline was November 2000. The Committee should be reminded that the deadline was coming up, and that at least three NGOs were preparing reports for the Committee. With the Government of Jordan, the Committee should ask the delegation how it had implemented the recommendations from its initial report.
* *** *
23rd session
14 August 2000
Afternoon
Representatives of United Nations specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) this afternoon briefed members of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights about the situation of the enjoyment of those rights in countries that the committee experts will be examining during its current session.
Several representatives of NGOs critiqued the reports forwarded to the Committee by Sudan, Jordan and Australia, charging that the documents glossed over or ignored shortcomings in their compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
NGOs alleged that economic reforms in Jordan, for example, had increased the price of essential products -- like milk, sugar and bread -- while unemployment had increased significantly at the same time. The Government of Sudan, another NGO charged, had withheld food to people in famine-stricken regions in an effort to starve out rebels in rebel-held areas. And in Australia, NGOs levelled accusations that while the country was enjoying economic success, indigenous peoples were discriminated against and did not enjoy the same living standards as other Australians.
Committee experts also heard from a representative of UNESCO who briefed the members on the results of the World Education Forum. Further, a representative of the United Nations Development Programme told the members that UNDP was studying the effectiveness of the implementation of the Committee's recommendations to countries.
The NGOs addressing the Committee were the Jordan Society for Human Rights, Habitat International Coalition, FIAN International, the Victorian Council of Social Services, the Foundation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research Action, the Kingsford Legal Centre, the Australia Social and Economic Rights Project, the Sovereign Union of Aboriginal Peoples of Australia, the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, Women Rights Action Network Australia, Contextos Latinoamericanos, and Inclusion International.
The discussion took place on the opening day of the Committee's twenty-third session. During the three-week meeting, the Committee will consider reports filed by Sudan, Jordan, Australia and Kyrgyzstan. There were no statements made on the situation in Kyrgyzstan.
When the Committee reconvenes on Tuesday, 15 August, at 10 a.m., it will hear the presentation of the second periodic report of Jordan.
Discussion
KISHORE SINGH, UNESCO, said what was most significant at the dawn of the twenty-first century was that, with renewed vision, a great impetus was being given by way of the global endeavour to the realization of the right to education in the wake of the World Education Forum. Culminating the Education for All decade, the Forum showcased evolving constitutional frameworks, national legislation and policies, and the progress that had been made in implementing education development policies and programmes.
The outcome of the forum, called the Dakar Framework for Action Education for All, recognized the critical role of education in empowering individuals and transforming societies, considering education as the key to sustainable development and peace and stability within and among countries. A singular achievement of the Dakar Framework was that it reaffirmed that education was a fundamental human right.
TONE SKAUG, United Nations Development Programme, said the focus of UNDP was at country and programme level. UNDP Geneva recently had decided to study the effectiveness of this Committee's concluding observations. The feedback that was expected to be received hopefully would provide some guidance.
On Jordan
ABAD MURAD, Jordan Society for Human Rights, said a parallel report was prepared to the Government's report, and it depended on sources, daily and weekly newspaper clips from 1997 to 2000, and the Centre of Strategic Studies at Jordan University, amongst others. There was economic deterioration in Jordan, caused by economic reforms which began in 1992. The price of bread had risen by 50 per cent, and other consumer products, like sugar, rice and milk, had risen by up to 60 per cent. One-third of the population fell below the poverty line. Another major outcome was the increase in the unemployment rates -- the Government estimated it was 15 per cent while some NGOs had estimated it at between 27.5 and 35 per cent. This represented a major threat to the health and nutrition of the Jordanian people, especially to the most vulnerable members of society -- women and children. That had led to higher divorce rates and increased crime rates. The authorities authorized arrests and attacks on journalists, affecting freedom of expression.
There were many acts of intimidation against influential figures. The Government also attempted to halt the distribution of books, newspapers and magazines.
JOSEPH SCHECHLA, Habitat International Coalition, said the Government of Jordan reported that there was no discrimination against foreign workers. But an NGO report detailed how foreign workers did not have full participation in trade union activities and within the social security system. Also in social security, there were four types of benefits that had not yet been implemented, but Jordanian workers were still paying for them. There had been a drop in the amount of people who had access to health care. The Government reported that it was studying the issue. These were just a few examples that contradicted the Government's report.
On Sudan
ALISON GRAHAM, FIAN International, said the Sudanese Government, in its own report, failed to address the right to adequate food. It did not document how people's access to food was being respected, protected and fulfilled. According to international human rights law, food should never be used as an instrument of political manipulation or pressure. But this had been done in Sudan, and this had helped lead to the presence of famine in the country. The 1998 famine was the product of human action, human rights watchers had concluded. Cattle had been stolen and crops had been burned. There had been massive human displacement. The UN predicted, in 1998, that many people were at risk of starvation. In August 1998, the projected figure was one million people. The implementation of such tactics was not exclusive to any one region in Sudan.
There was also the manipulation of food aid. A State party should demonstrate that it had used all the resources at its disposal, and that included seeking international support. But the Government had clearly not complied with its obligations. In fact, in had obstructed the efforts of the international relief community. The Government believed that by cutting off relief to rebel-held areas, the rebels could be starved out.
On Australia
ANNIE PETTITT, Victorian Council of Social Services, said Australian NGOs had a number of key concerns about continuing economic, social and cultural disadvantages in Australia. The majority of the population enjoyed high standards of living and had ready access to employment, social and cultural pursuits. However, for a significant number of people, this was not the case. It was disturbing that the Government's report did not identify a number of important issues affecting these groups. First and foremost was the well-documented, systemic discrimination suffered on an ongoing basis by indigenous peoples with respect to every right in the Covenant. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had suffered from poor health, and had levels of education and living standards that were vastly lower than those enjoyed by the general population.
There were grave concerns about recent changes to the industrial relations system that disadvantaged low-income workers and undermined the maintenance of minimum adequate conditions of work and remuneration. There had been huge reductions in public funding for housing assistance despite ever-growing numbers on public housing waiting lists. Human rights education was not included in the core curriculum of any State or Territory, but was left to the discretion of individual schools. Australia was an affluent country with increasing living standards enjoyed by some sections of the community. But inequality had increased dramatically, which was most stark in relation to the living standards and life chances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
NEVA COLLINGS, Foundation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research Action, said in recent years, there had been a winding back of policies by the Federal Government regarding the right to self-determination which had serious implications for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights of indigenous peoples. In 1991, Parliament gave unanimous support for the establishment of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. The enabling legislation included a sunset clause winding up the activities of the Council after 10 years. At the time, it was assumed by the Government of the day that 10 years would be enough time to be reconciled. But in light of the present Federal Government's refusal to support elements of the Declaration of Reconciliation, launched on 27 May 2000 as the culmination of the Council's activities, it was clear the work of the Council was not finished yet.
ANNA CODY, Kingsford Legal Centre, said the Australian Government acknowledged that under the justification of the assimilation of indigenous peoples into white society, many indigenous children were taken from their families. The aim of the policy was to breed out "Aboriginality" and to assimilate Aborigines into the social and economic structure of the white community. The effects of this genocidal policy which lasted from the 1880s to the 1970s were still ongoing. Whole communities had been affected, and it was not possible to estimate accurately how many children were forcibly removed from their homes as many records were destroyed. A national inquiry was held into the separation of indigenous children from their families. It made numerous recommendations. Most of them had not been implemented by the Australian Government. Many community and human rights groups had called for the establishment of a Reparations Tribunal. The Tribunal would award compensation as well as keep records, recording the history orally and linking up families again.
MELISSA COAD, Australian Social and Economic Rights Project, said since 4 March 1997, newly arrived permanent residents had to wait two years before being able to access Social Security benefits, other than the Family benefit. Family Payment was a supplemental payment to assist in the cost of raising children and was not a substantive income support payment. Before 4 March, the waiting period was six months and did not include the safety net payment Special Benefit. Special Benefit was payable to people in financial hardship, unable to earn a sufficient livelihood and not eligible for any other Social Security payment. Anecdotal evidence suggested that administrators had taken a very restrictive view of this provision, making Special Benefit in all practicality difficult to obtain. There had been instances where people in extreme hardship had been discouraged from even lodging a claim form for Special Benefit. Lodgement of a claim and subsequent rejection was necessary before the claimant could initiate an appeal against the decision not to pay. When claims were rejected, claimants had to pursue an often lengthy and humiliating appeals process. The process compromised a number of levels of appeals and could sometimes take many months to resolve, leaving the claimant without income support in the meantime.
ELEANOR GILBERT, Sovereign Union of Aboriginal Peoples of Australia, said three successive sessions of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination had placed Australia on the early warning urgent action procedure, due to racially discriminatory legislation in many areas, including land and the failure to federally implement legislation. Last month, the Human Rights Committee released its concluding observations on Australia and listed the attempts by the Government to avoid tackling the issue of self-determination as a principle area of concern. In November, the Government would be before the Committee against Torture, and later, the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Meanwhile, on 4 August, the High Court of Australia confirmed there was no domestic law against genocide. Domestic remedies were exhausted. What remedies were there in the United Nations?
LEILANI FARHA, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, said the common perception was that Australia was a country with few housing problems. Unfortunately, that was not the story. The Government had undertaken a major redirection in low-income housing which focused more on the private market rather than the public system. The Government recognized that low-income households could not always compete in the private market, and pointed to a few of its policies -- including a rental assistance programme. What the report did not say was that it dramatically reduced the amount of money it was spending on housing for low-income people. It dropped by $334 million since 1996. The end result was that fewer low-income Australians than ever before could access housing, and waiting lists, already long, were growing longer. The average Australian household was fortunate enough to pay only 13 per cent of its income on housing costs. But for the poorest citizens of Australia, the number grew to about 65 per cent. For many, the private market was simply not an option.
CLANCY KELLY, Women's Rights Action Network Australia (WRANA), said the context of WRANA's concerns was the globalization of free market economic policies during the 1990s, which had resulted in diminished social spending, privatization of many public sector functions and the deregulation of labour markets around the world. In Australia, as in other western democracies, there had been a major reconfiguration of the relationship between the State and the individual. These changes were initiated by the Labour Government of the 1980s and the early 1990s, but the election of the conservative government in March 1996 marked the end of efforts to ameliorate the inequities produced by the inefficiencies of the market state. From a gender perspective, the social transformations won by the women's movement of the 1970s and 1980s had been hollowed out by the redirection of funds and policies that showed little respect for what made life possible for most women. A shadow report prepared by WRANA expressed concern that the new market-driven regulatory state impacted disproportionately on women's enjoyment of economic and social rights, expanding their responsibilities in the area of unpaid work, reducing their access to social services and increasing their vulnerability to exploitation in the paid workforce.
General Statements
ANTIGUAR VARGAS, Contextos Latino Americanos, said it would never be sufficient to simply complain about violations of human rights. The prospects of overcoming this situation were not good -- a worsening with the respect of human rights had been seen. Many crimes had been avoided thanks to several organizations which put itself in harms way. A broad mobilization had to be continued from a diverse collection of groups. Latin America had seen its share of violations of rights. There was a great difference between the wealthy and the impoverished there. Many people did not have access to adequate housing, could not afford important medicines, and did not have a glimmer of hope of getting into the most basic aspects of education. Experience had shown that only mobilization of society could stop and reverse this trend. These basic needs must be met, and the necessary political and legal tools needed to be put in place.
NANCY BREITENBACH, Inclusion International, said significant progress had been made in improving the lives of people with disabilities. A number of Governments had issued legislation, and others were on the verge of doing so. This Committee, in 1994, adopted General Comment No. 5, which promoted the rights of persons with disabilities. Nevertheless, in practice, people with disabilities continued to be marginalized, in particular, people with intellectual disabilities. Often they were institutionalized, taken away from family life, educational opportunities, and employment opportunities. The World Health Organization had estimated the number of intellectually disabled people to be 60 million, with the number expected to reach 100 million in the years to come. They were the most likely to be deprived of education, which in turn would lead them into poverty.
JOSEPH SCHECHLA, Habitat International Coalition, said follow up measures to the Committee reports were important aspects of this Committee's work. In the last review of Israel, the concluding observations called on it to provide additional information within a deadline. The information concerned the implementation of the concluding observations, including law reform. That deadline was November 2000. The Committee should be reminded that the deadline was coming up, and that at least three NGOs were preparing reports for the Committee. With the Government of Jordan, the Committee should ask the delegation how it had implemented the recommendations from its initial report.
* *** *