Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
18 August 2000
Share
CERD
57th session
18 August 2000
Morning
Adopts Concluding Observations and
Recommendations on Report of Nepal
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination concluded this morning its consideration of a report presented by a Government delegation from Norway on that country's performance in implementing the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Over the course of the meeting, the Norwegian delegation provided answers to questions raised by the Committee's 18 independent experts. The Norwegian delegation said, among other things, that the Sami people existed long before the formation of the Norwegian State. They had been subjected to harsh assimilation measures; and they had been discriminated against in many areas.
Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill, the Committee expert who served as country rapporteur to the fifteenth periodic report of Norway, said Norway's gender equality act which entered into force in 1999 specified the definition of discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, and it had done well in strongly promoting gender equality, and the Committee did not see why the State party could not do the same for race and ethnic equality.
The 6-member Norwegian delegation was led by Petter Wille, Deputy Director General at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway; he and the members of the delegation were on hand during the consideration of the report to provide additional information and answers to the experts' questions.
The Committee will issue its final conclusions on the report of Norway over the course of its current session which will end on 25 August.
Norway is among the 156 States parties to the International Convention and as such it must present periodic reports on its efforts to give effect to the provisions of the treaty.
Also this morning the Committee adopted its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Nepal which it considered last week. In its observations, the Committee, in light of the diverse multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society of Nepal, noted that the existence of certain traditional customs and societal attitudes were obstacles to efforts to combat discrimination. It further noted that extreme poverty, which affected a significant part of Nepal's population, and the presence of a large number of refugees from neighbouring countries, were factors which represented serious difficulties in the fulfilment of Nepal's obligations under the Convention.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will take up the initial report of Uzbekistan (document CERD/C/327/Add.1).
Response of Norway
In response to queries put by Committee experts, members of the Norwegian delegation said the concluding observations and the records from the meeting would be made available to the public later. In addition, the Ministry of Local Government and the Directorate of Immigration would hold a seminar next October to discuss the results of the Committee's debate.
Responding to a question on amending the Constitution to include reference to the prohibition of racism, the delegation said that the Norwegian Constitution was from 1814 and it was the oldest in Europe; many of its provisions seemed archaic and outdated, but the interpretation had been adjusted to meet the requirements of modern society; the procedure for amendments to the Constitution was cumbersome, and legislators were reluctant to do so.
Freedom of expression versus protection of persons against racist statements was a difficult area, the delegation said. However, the Government was at present in a process of following up on a report from a law commission on freedom of expression, and a proposal was expected from the commission for an act against ethnic discrimination.
A question was asked about measures to prevent discrimination as regards access to restaurants or pubs, to which the delegation said there were compulsory courses for doormen and the Oslo police had also issued guidelines for handling such problems.
In response to concerns about the Sami people, the Norwegian delegation said the Sami society existed long before the formation of the Norwegian State. The Sami people had been subjected to harsh assimilation measures, and they had been discriminated against in many areas. On 7 October 1977, the King of Norway had expressed regret concerning the policy of assimilation. In the meantime, a Sami parliament had been established in 1997 and their language was given equal status with the Norwegian. As indigenous people, the Sami had the right to special protection.
Norway was the first country to ratify International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169 on Indigenous Peoples and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, the delegation said; and already, three periodic reports had been submitted to the ILO.
Under the Norwegian law system, a dualist system was applied as regards the relationship between international and domestic laws, the delegation said; international law could not automatically be applied as domestic Norwegian statutory law; and a specific act of legislation was needed in order to make a treaty applied as statutory law. By the same token, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was not self-executing under Norwegian law.
Asked about inmates with immigrant background in Norwegian prisons, the delegation said that in 1999, there had been approximately 2,300 inmates in all prisons of which 85 per cent were Norwegian citizens. While 94 per cent of inmates were Europeans, 3 per cent were from Asia and 2 per cent from Africa; and the rest were from America and New Zealand. In a report presented to parliament, it was concluded that foreign citizens and linguistic minorities faced special problems when serving their sentences.
A question was asked concerning an incident at the coastal hospital in Stavern in 1977, when the hospital refused to admit an individual because he represented an alien culture. The delegation said that the case illustrated how important the non-governmental organizations were in the struggle against discrimination. The administrators of the hospital were reprimanded for their acts and they were ordered to change any guidelines in order to prevent similar discrimination, and the hospital had complied.
Humanitarian considerations would always be taken when a person was not given asylum status, the delegation said. In addition, the individual would be given the benefit of doubt. The establishment of an appeals board for asylum and immigration cases had been approved by the country's parliament and it would come into force at the beginning of next year.
PATRICIA NOZIPHO JANUARY-BARDILL, the Committee expert who served as country rapporteur to the report of Norway, said that the establishment of the Centre for Combatting Ethnic Discrimination in 1998 was a good initiative. It was clearly a very able and professional body judging by the quality of the shadow report that they compiled, and the Government should give it full support.
Ms. January-Bardill said the Committee had frankly expressed its concern about the importance of specific discriminatory legislation and wanted clarification on the status of the Convention in Norway's domestic laws. The Committee was encouraged by the human rights act and the fact that Norway had embraced the European Union Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and it looked forward to the Act being a protective mechanism.
Norway's gender equality act which entered into force in 1999 specified the definition of discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, Ms. January-Bardill said. Norway had done well in strongly promoting gender equality and the Committee did not see why the State party could not do the same for race and ethnic equality.
Young people needed to feel free to develop their potential; to continue to grate their self esteem by stopping and searching them was really a violation of their right, and it was uncharacteristic of Norway to do so, Ms. January-Bardill said.
Concluding Observations and Recommendations on Nepal
As part of positive aspects on the report of Nepal, the Committee welcomed the initiatives undertaken by the State party, such as the decision of 17 July 2000 on the emancipation of bonded labourers, and the adoption of the 1997 compensation for torture act, which demonstrated Nepal's commitment to furthering the human rights of its people. It also welcomed the adoption of Nepal's ninth plan, containing important policies, strategies, and programmes, which aimed to, among other things, eradicate racial discrimination of disadvantaged groups by addressing their socio-economic development.
Cited among factors and difficulties impeding the implementation of the Convention, the Committee, in light of the diverse multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society of Nepal, noted that the existence of certain traditional customs and societal attitudes were obstacles to efforts to combat discrimination. It further noted that extreme poverty, which affected a significant part of Nepal's population, and the presence of a large number of refugees from neighbouring countries, were factors which represented serious difficulties in the fulfilment of Nepal's obligations under the Convention.
The Committee remained concerned that the full applicability of Nepal's declaration on articles 4 and 6 of the Convention might not be ensured; about the absence in the report of disaggregated data of the population, such as by age, sex, nationality, ethnic origin, religion, including caste, and language; regretted the absence of any information on the effectiveness of the measures of constitutional and legislative provisions relating to the implementation of the Convention; expressed concern at the existence of caste-based discrimination, and the denial which that system imposed to some segment of the population on the enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the Convention; and about the situation of a large number of refugees from neighbouring countries in Nepal.
And the Committee recommended, among other things, that Nepal provide information on the National Human Rights Commission's responsibilities, composition, methods and achievements particularly in combatting racial discrimination; provide disaggregated data of the population in subsequent reports; supply information on the implementation of practical and substantive measures to eradicate the practice of the caste system; and ensure adequate support for local authorities, including development of professional capacity, for implementation of the Convention. The Committee also recommended that Nepal continue to prioritize and target social services for persons belonging to the most vulnerable groups.
* *** *
57th session
18 August 2000
Morning
Adopts Concluding Observations and
Recommendations on Report of Nepal
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination concluded this morning its consideration of a report presented by a Government delegation from Norway on that country's performance in implementing the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Over the course of the meeting, the Norwegian delegation provided answers to questions raised by the Committee's 18 independent experts. The Norwegian delegation said, among other things, that the Sami people existed long before the formation of the Norwegian State. They had been subjected to harsh assimilation measures; and they had been discriminated against in many areas.
Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill, the Committee expert who served as country rapporteur to the fifteenth periodic report of Norway, said Norway's gender equality act which entered into force in 1999 specified the definition of discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, and it had done well in strongly promoting gender equality, and the Committee did not see why the State party could not do the same for race and ethnic equality.
The 6-member Norwegian delegation was led by Petter Wille, Deputy Director General at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway; he and the members of the delegation were on hand during the consideration of the report to provide additional information and answers to the experts' questions.
The Committee will issue its final conclusions on the report of Norway over the course of its current session which will end on 25 August.
Norway is among the 156 States parties to the International Convention and as such it must present periodic reports on its efforts to give effect to the provisions of the treaty.
Also this morning the Committee adopted its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Nepal which it considered last week. In its observations, the Committee, in light of the diverse multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society of Nepal, noted that the existence of certain traditional customs and societal attitudes were obstacles to efforts to combat discrimination. It further noted that extreme poverty, which affected a significant part of Nepal's population, and the presence of a large number of refugees from neighbouring countries, were factors which represented serious difficulties in the fulfilment of Nepal's obligations under the Convention.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will take up the initial report of Uzbekistan (document CERD/C/327/Add.1).
Response of Norway
In response to queries put by Committee experts, members of the Norwegian delegation said the concluding observations and the records from the meeting would be made available to the public later. In addition, the Ministry of Local Government and the Directorate of Immigration would hold a seminar next October to discuss the results of the Committee's debate.
Responding to a question on amending the Constitution to include reference to the prohibition of racism, the delegation said that the Norwegian Constitution was from 1814 and it was the oldest in Europe; many of its provisions seemed archaic and outdated, but the interpretation had been adjusted to meet the requirements of modern society; the procedure for amendments to the Constitution was cumbersome, and legislators were reluctant to do so.
Freedom of expression versus protection of persons against racist statements was a difficult area, the delegation said. However, the Government was at present in a process of following up on a report from a law commission on freedom of expression, and a proposal was expected from the commission for an act against ethnic discrimination.
A question was asked about measures to prevent discrimination as regards access to restaurants or pubs, to which the delegation said there were compulsory courses for doormen and the Oslo police had also issued guidelines for handling such problems.
In response to concerns about the Sami people, the Norwegian delegation said the Sami society existed long before the formation of the Norwegian State. The Sami people had been subjected to harsh assimilation measures, and they had been discriminated against in many areas. On 7 October 1977, the King of Norway had expressed regret concerning the policy of assimilation. In the meantime, a Sami parliament had been established in 1997 and their language was given equal status with the Norwegian. As indigenous people, the Sami had the right to special protection.
Norway was the first country to ratify International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169 on Indigenous Peoples and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, the delegation said; and already, three periodic reports had been submitted to the ILO.
Under the Norwegian law system, a dualist system was applied as regards the relationship between international and domestic laws, the delegation said; international law could not automatically be applied as domestic Norwegian statutory law; and a specific act of legislation was needed in order to make a treaty applied as statutory law. By the same token, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was not self-executing under Norwegian law.
Asked about inmates with immigrant background in Norwegian prisons, the delegation said that in 1999, there had been approximately 2,300 inmates in all prisons of which 85 per cent were Norwegian citizens. While 94 per cent of inmates were Europeans, 3 per cent were from Asia and 2 per cent from Africa; and the rest were from America and New Zealand. In a report presented to parliament, it was concluded that foreign citizens and linguistic minorities faced special problems when serving their sentences.
A question was asked concerning an incident at the coastal hospital in Stavern in 1977, when the hospital refused to admit an individual because he represented an alien culture. The delegation said that the case illustrated how important the non-governmental organizations were in the struggle against discrimination. The administrators of the hospital were reprimanded for their acts and they were ordered to change any guidelines in order to prevent similar discrimination, and the hospital had complied.
Humanitarian considerations would always be taken when a person was not given asylum status, the delegation said. In addition, the individual would be given the benefit of doubt. The establishment of an appeals board for asylum and immigration cases had been approved by the country's parliament and it would come into force at the beginning of next year.
PATRICIA NOZIPHO JANUARY-BARDILL, the Committee expert who served as country rapporteur to the report of Norway, said that the establishment of the Centre for Combatting Ethnic Discrimination in 1998 was a good initiative. It was clearly a very able and professional body judging by the quality of the shadow report that they compiled, and the Government should give it full support.
Ms. January-Bardill said the Committee had frankly expressed its concern about the importance of specific discriminatory legislation and wanted clarification on the status of the Convention in Norway's domestic laws. The Committee was encouraged by the human rights act and the fact that Norway had embraced the European Union Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and it looked forward to the Act being a protective mechanism.
Norway's gender equality act which entered into force in 1999 specified the definition of discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, Ms. January-Bardill said. Norway had done well in strongly promoting gender equality and the Committee did not see why the State party could not do the same for race and ethnic equality.
Young people needed to feel free to develop their potential; to continue to grate their self esteem by stopping and searching them was really a violation of their right, and it was uncharacteristic of Norway to do so, Ms. January-Bardill said.
Concluding Observations and Recommendations on Nepal
As part of positive aspects on the report of Nepal, the Committee welcomed the initiatives undertaken by the State party, such as the decision of 17 July 2000 on the emancipation of bonded labourers, and the adoption of the 1997 compensation for torture act, which demonstrated Nepal's commitment to furthering the human rights of its people. It also welcomed the adoption of Nepal's ninth plan, containing important policies, strategies, and programmes, which aimed to, among other things, eradicate racial discrimination of disadvantaged groups by addressing their socio-economic development.
Cited among factors and difficulties impeding the implementation of the Convention, the Committee, in light of the diverse multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society of Nepal, noted that the existence of certain traditional customs and societal attitudes were obstacles to efforts to combat discrimination. It further noted that extreme poverty, which affected a significant part of Nepal's population, and the presence of a large number of refugees from neighbouring countries, were factors which represented serious difficulties in the fulfilment of Nepal's obligations under the Convention.
The Committee remained concerned that the full applicability of Nepal's declaration on articles 4 and 6 of the Convention might not be ensured; about the absence in the report of disaggregated data of the population, such as by age, sex, nationality, ethnic origin, religion, including caste, and language; regretted the absence of any information on the effectiveness of the measures of constitutional and legislative provisions relating to the implementation of the Convention; expressed concern at the existence of caste-based discrimination, and the denial which that system imposed to some segment of the population on the enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the Convention; and about the situation of a large number of refugees from neighbouring countries in Nepal.
And the Committee recommended, among other things, that Nepal provide information on the National Human Rights Commission's responsibilities, composition, methods and achievements particularly in combatting racial discrimination; provide disaggregated data of the population in subsequent reports; supply information on the implementation of practical and substantive measures to eradicate the practice of the caste system; and ensure adequate support for local authorities, including development of professional capacity, for implementation of the Convention. The Committee also recommended that Nepal continue to prioritize and target social services for persons belonging to the most vulnerable groups.
* *** *