Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
23 March 2001
Share
Human Rights Committee
Seventy-first Session
23 March 2001
1907th Meeting (PM)
The situation of Haitian workers was among the issues raised this afternoon by expert members of the Human Rights Committee as it concluded consideration of the fourth periodic report of the Dominican Republic on its compliance with the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights. Experts also expressed concern with regard to the existence of military and police courts, the question of street children, freedom of expression and access to public information.
Describing the situation of Haitian workers in the Dominican Republic, a member of the Dominican delegation said there were hundreds of Haitians who tried to enter the country illegally. For humanitarian reasons, an unspecified number of Haitians had been allowed to take jobs in the informal sector, and now they had become a part of the society. Dominican immigration authorities avoided separating families in the repatriation process. The Government was trying to work with undocumented workers in its country, and non-governmental organizations were involved.
Another member of the delegation added that Haitian construction workers could request six-month working permits based on their contracts, which could be extended by another six months. Haitians could move freely throughout the country and had a right to education, including education in the French language.
The delegation also gave detailed responses to a number of the issues raised, including the status of the country’s military and police courts and the country’s labour laws.
In his closing remarks, Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati of India, Committee Chairman, congratulated the delegation on the Government’s efforts to improve the human rights situation in the Dominican Republic. As experts had pointed out, however, the report presented was inadequate and unsatisfactory. It merely set out legal provisions, incompletely, and said nothing at all about what was happening on the ground. There were a large number of questions which had been left unanswered, he said. He hoped the next report would be fuller.
The Committee will meet again on Monday, 26 March, at 10 a.m. to take up the initial report of Uzbekistan on compliance with the Covenant.
Background
The Human Rights Committee met this afternoon to continue its consideration of the fourth periodic report of the Dominican Republic on its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (document CCPR/C/DOM/99/3).
(For more background information and summary of the report, see Press Release HR/CT/596, issued 23 March.)
Questions by Experts
An expert asked how the Covenant was realized in practice and how it could be incorporated into Government in such a way that it would not be overlooked. He also asked how long trials took and how many people were in prison for which offences. He wanted to know if the Dominican Republic had a public defender system and how legal aid became available to people who ran afoul of the law. He asked whether the military were “confined to the barracks” of if they were involved in civil life in an inappropriate way. He also requested more information on legal procedures regarding expulsion and on refoulement. When the Government expelled or extradited someone, did it assure itself that that person was not exposed to torture in the recipient country?
Another expert asked what the Government’s view was on special justice for law enforcement officials, specifically, did convictions take place in situations where the law enforcement institution was expecting the very behaviour that was in question. He also asked for more information about allegations of instances of torture by members of the police and the military. Regarding youthful detainees, he said a new facility especially for youthful offenders had been constructed but, according to his information, had never been used for that purpose, and asked for the reason for that. He also wondered whether information was correct that prison guards were law enforcement and military people and not specialized guards.
The last expert in the question session said he was particularly concerned about police officers who freely shoot at civilians. The fact that some 200 people had been killed in a short time was alarming. He did not understand why the police were not tried by normal courts but by so called police courts. He wanted adequate factual information on matters such as composition of the courts, the manner in which court officers were appointed and on what qualification.
Responses by Delegation
Rhadys Abreu de Polanco (Dominican Republic), Ambassador responsible for Human Rights in the Foreign Affairs Ministry, noted that one of the strongest concerns raised by the Committee was about the police courts.
Lieutenant-General JOSE FRANCISCO CADENA MOQUETE (Dominican Republic) said that several members of the Committee had expressed concern about a case where four men had lost their lives. They had been committing an assault on a woman and had exchanged fire with the police. A member of the police had died in the exchange, and the four men had also died. A police court had found certain of the police officers guilty. The police appeals court had exonerated the officers on the grounds that they were acting in their own defence. The case had gone on to the Supreme Court of Justice, where it was currently being considered.
He then said a case where several Haitians had lost their lives at the hands of members of the Dominican armed forces had been given to the mixed military and police court. No sentence had yet been given. Military and police jurisdiction had been applied because the law gave those courts the right to hear the cases. The question of jurisdiction was being discussed internally at the moment in the Dominican Republic. Various elements -- including non-governmental organizations -- in the country felt the courts were unconstitutional, and a case on the matter was currently before the country’s Supreme Court.
He then read out a document which, in his opinion, provided a justification for the courts’ existence. Article 63 of the Constitution established the judicial powers of the various judicial bodies in the country, he said, citing a number of laws that established the military and police courts.
An expert said an analysis of Dominican Republic law was not necessary --rather what was needed was an analysis of what political and social necessity had given rise to the law.
Lieutenant-General MOQUETTE (Dominican Republic) said such courts were not a special privilege. There were also traffic, youth and land courts, for example. Military or police members were not like ordinary citizens. They did not, for example, have the freedom to travel to other countries without permission. They had renounced such rights to serve the country and combat crime. It would seem that the police were not being regarded as human beings. He could provide a whole list of policemen who had fallen in the line of duty –- their rights were not being defended. It was considered a monstrosity that the law gave the police special courts, but not a monstrosity that laws in other States established, for example, the death penalty. There was a contradiction there.
He then read an editorial which stated that the national police could not be a laboratory experiment, even if the goal was an ideal institution –- because the risk was run that society would go unprotected. Those criticizing the police failed to note that it was crime, not the police, that was the problem.
PRAFULLACHANDRA NATWARLAL BHAGWATI of India, Committee Chairman, asked the head of the delegation that responses be limited to answering questions posed by the Committee.
He said it was appropriate that judges would have knowledge of military law since the national police had a military structure and discipline, although the police were formally civilian.
Addressing concerns about prisons, Mr. MOQUETE (Dominican Republic) said his country had 31 prisons. There were 15,263 prisoners, among them a total of 9,515 in preventive detention, a percentage of 63 per cent. Preventive custody affected any person who was accused of committing a crime against the life, physical integrity or property of a person or against public property, and any person accused of certain acts such as drug trafficking, arson or terrorism.
There were two stages in the process of an investigation. The investigative stage should take no longer than two months but could be extended by one or two months. The trial stage could vary in length, as there was a dual jurisdiction system in the Dominican Republic, and any case could go through lower and higher courts. That stage could take a number of months. The long preventive detention in his country was the result of the fact that there were few courts. Last month a law had been passed to double the number of criminal courts. Progress had been made, he said, as the percentage had fallen from 81 per cent on 1997 to 63 per cent.
More resources had been allotted to transport prisoners from prisons to courts at the appropriate time. Another Government measure was aimed at improving the health of prisoners. Prisoner registration had been improved and would be computerized this year. He emphasized that the Government had taken pains to deal with separation on the basis of sex and age in prisons. There were two prisons for minors, and a second floor of a prison had totally been refurbished to house minors. Although women were held in the same institutions as men, the women's sections were completely separate from the men.
Since the six to seven months that the Government had been in power, 500 prisoners had been pardoned. The Government took great pains to ensure that all prisons followed the same policy. There was also training in place so that independent prison officers could be trained replacing police and military personnel.
Prisons had been seen as warehouses for prisoners where torture took place. Nowadays, in each important police headquarters, a civilian lawyer working with the Prosecutor’s Office was available 24 hours a day, thus ensuring that no torture took place to force a confession.
Efforts to manage the prison system had proved their worth, he said. Every day, truckloads of new mattresses arrived and the prisoners now had televisions. Cells had been cleaned up. These initiatives had been undertaken to bring the system in line with the stipulations of the Covenant.
JULIO CESAR CASTANOS GUZMAN (Dominican Republic) said aliens had the same civil rights as nationals in the Dominican Republic. Article 11 of the Civil Code ensured that.
He said measures had been taken to protect children from commercial and sexual exploitation. A court had been set up to hear the relevant cases. Statistics were not available, but there had been severe sentences passed down under this jurisdiction. Efforts were made to see whether there were minors being subjected to exploitation in major cities. When cases had been discovered, efforts were made to penalize those responsible, often resulting in imprisonment and subsequent expulsion.
Article 11 of the Constitution provided for an exception regarding granting citizenship to the children of individuals in transit through the Dominican Republic. He cited the relevant law on the subject. The Dominican Republic subscribed to agreements for agricultural workers with the Haitian Government. Many illegal Haitians crossed the border into the country. At the same time, there were many who resided legally. The children of Haitians living legally in the country received citizenship -- children of those in transit did not. They were eligible for Haitian citizenship, he pointed out.
His Government did not want the Dominican Republic to be the destination of adventurers, he said. There had been serious problems with elections because of problems related to the question of nationality.
RANDOLFO NUNES VARGAS (Dominican Republic), answering questions regarding immigrants, said that according to estimates there were 340,000 Haitians present in the Dominican Republic, 36 per cent of whom had identification papers. About 1,600 Haitians had gotten six-month work permits, and around 9,000 Haitians had another type of document. The Dominican Republic was open country to all nationalities.
Only undocumented persons had been subject to expulsion, he said, as was specified under the law. Regarding workers in the sugar industry, he said their return was specified in the work contract. The Government had always been flexible in cases of informal workers, however. A new system had been implemented in which workers could obtain six-month work permits.
In 1996 the immigration law had been updated. Government programmes had been announced to improve health, education, transportation and other areas in order to increase the standard of living of all workers. Immigration and work laws would have social provisions included. All immigration regulations were compatible with the Covenant, he said.
Ms. ABREU DE POLANCO (Dominican Republic) said that after the amendment of the Constitution in 1994, a National Council of the Magistrature had been set up and there was now a national school for magistrates, where human rights courses were given. In August 2000, the President of the Republic had created a human rights organization within the military to provide training. Work was going on with the assistance of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to promote and protect human rights.
Various groups had visited the country, she said, and in 2000 a seminar on the preparation of human rights reports had been held. Work was being undertaken at both the governmental and non-governmental level to ensure better dissemination of information.
Questions and Comments from Experts
An expert expressed concern that a number of matters had only been lightly touched on and that previous Committee recommendations had not been carried out. She asked for further clarification on the status of Haitian workers in the Dominican Republic. The situation of those workers had not improved and seemed to have gotten worse lately. It seemed that there was forced recruitment by militia members of Haitians, who obliged them to work long hours for little money in the sugarcane fields.
She asked if a proposed "regularization" of Haitian workers had taken place. There was a certain percentage of workers with no status in the country. That lack of status made them vulnerable to, among other things, expulsion. Just three months ago there had been some sort of operation where, simultaneously, hundreds of people had been arrested and repatriated without any proceeding whatsoever. How were such expulsions applied? she asked. What recourse did a person faced with expulsion have? She asked for statistics on how many people without documents had been expelled during the past year.
Another expert asked if there were two types of Haitians -- non-citizens and citizens of Haitian origin -- and if Haitians were not a linguistic and ethnic minority in the Dominican Republic. He said there were allegations of discrimination against Haitians, based on ethnicity and colour. Were their deportations based on colour? He also wanted to know if the provisions under article 13 of the Covenant were applied in every case of expulsion. Were Dominican Republic citizens of Haitian descent deported?
Regarding children of Haitians, he asked if Haitians were living in the territory who were not citizen because their parents or grandparents were considered to be in transit at the time of their birth.
Another expert remarked that the answers provided to a question about street children were not very clarifying. How many years could one be a non-immigrant? Was there a time period beyond which a person could apply for the status of immigrant? Did children of non-immigrant people have the right to health care and education? She had been informed that it was difficult to get information on the proceedings of police courts, which ran contrary to the freedom of expression. She also wanted to know why the police did not have freedom of religion and why they were not allowed to vote, something which was incompatible with the Covenant.
Another expert observed that he had not heard any substantial comment on the questions he had raised in the morning on the status of women in the Dominican Republic and the independent human rights monitoring agencies. He, too, sought further information on the situation of Haitians in the Dominican Republic.
He said many different figures on the numbers of Haitians in the country were available. However many there were, he felt he had to take issue with the stated notion that there was no discrimination in the country. There appeared, for example, to be ample evidence of exceedingly poor living conditions, restriction of movement and forced expulsion of Haitians. He could not accept the statement that there were no ethnic or religious minorities in Haiti –- Haitians were a minority in the country.
An expert asked for information about the working condition of children. The report stated that children under 14 were prohibited from working. He wanted to know if people below that age were working. He also wanted to know, among other things, how many hours a week adults could work and why children under 18 were prohibited from working as messengers. Could Haitians working on sugar plantations form trade unions? He also sought more information on general trade union policy in the country.
Ms. ABREU DE POLANCA (Dominican Republic), answering questions about repatriation of Haitians, said inspectors worked with Haitian officials. At the border, a final verification of the legal status would take place before expatriations, and the Haitian Consul had the right to participate. Non-governmental organizations were also invited to participate. There was no danger at all that a deportation would be illegal or a violation of human rights.
She said the Dominican Republic experienced different levels of economic growth, leading to migration flows. There were hundreds of Haitians who tried to enter the country illegally. For humanitarian reasons, an unspecified number of Haitians had been allowed to take jobs in the informal sector, and now they had become a part of the society. Dominican immigration authorities avoided separating families in the repatriation process. There had been contacts between the Foreign Ministers of both countries. The Government was trying to work with undocumented workers in its country and non-governmental organizations were involved.
RANDOLFO NUNES VARGAS (Dominican Republic) added that Haitian construction workers could request six-month working permits based on their contracts, which could be extended by another six months. Haitians could move freely throughout the country and had a right to education, including education in the French language. Discrimination on the basis of race or language did not exist, he said.
Ms. Abreu de Polanco (Dominican Republic) noted that there was a publication that stated that Haiti recognized that improved conditions existed in the Dominican Republic. On child labour, she said the International Labor Organization (ILO) was using a Dominican Republic work programme as a model. The regional director had recently been in the country to speak on child labour and had used the Dominican Republic as an example. Under the programme, children were taken out of the workplace and a monthly amount was paid to their parents, who then had an obligation to send them to school. The system had been very effective. She said answers would be given in writing to the questions on the Ombudsman’s Office and the status of women.
Lieutenant Colonel GARCIA LARA of the Dominican Republic gave further information regarding free access to information in the police courts, and assured the Committee that he would provide any further information needed. The Constitution stated that it was an obligation for all citizens to vote. Those who had lost their citizenship could not vote, nor could those serving in the armed forces or the police. On freedom of religion and association, he said the police was a body of the political system and such systems had an ideological basis –- a member of a political system could not sustain an idea different from that system. He said police courts should be reformed, but not dismantled. He would be sending the Committee his arguments justifying the existence of the courts.
Ms. ABREU DE POLANCO (Dominican Republic) said she felt most questions had been answered. Those that had not been addressed would be sent in writing.
Asking additional questions, an expert wanted to know if the delegation was aware of allegations that before the final check at the border before expulsion, identification documents were destroyed. Another expert insisted on an answer to the question of second generation undocumented Haitians.
CESAR CASTANOS GUZMAN (Dominican Republic) said that during an arrest, the person was asked for identification. In case of temporary farm workers with contracts, it was assumed they would return to their country after their contract expired, but they could ask to become legal residents. There was a large number of illegal people, however, and one also needed to look at the historical factors affecting the relationship between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Dominican nationality was granted in accordance with the Constitution.
Regarding second generation Haitians, he said that problem would be examined in the next census. To register children in his country, parents of all nationalities, including Dominicans, needed documents. There was no discrimination involved. There were many Haitians not registered, but also many Dominicans. Article 1 of the Covenant stated that all people had the right to self-determination and the Dominican Republic had that right as well.
He added that Haiti was one of the poorest countries in the world and that the Dominican Republic was trying to help. It could not, however, solve all the problems by itself and the international community also had a responsibility.
Reacting to a statement that some civil servants did not enjoy the same rights as citizens, and that that was in accordance with domestic law and the Constitution, an expert remarked that the whole purpose of today’s exercise was to determine whether domestic law of a country was in conformity with the Covenant.
Mr. BHAGWATI of India, Committee Chairman, said the Committee had been glad to resume the dialogue. He congratulated the delegation on the Government’s efforts to improve the human rights situation in the Dominican Republic. As experts had pointed out, however, the report was inadequate and unsatisfactory. It merely set out legal provisions, incompletely, and said nothing at all about what was happening on the ground, as the Committee’s guidelines required. The answers given by the delegation could have been incorporated in the report, which would have helped with the dialogue.
He said there were several areas of serious concern that remained to be resolved. Most of those concerns had been expressed by the Committee in its concluding observations on the third periodic report. Those issues had not been addressed. The Committee had urged at that time that all steps be taken to ensure that members of the police and military were tried by ordinary courts. A justification for the continuation of special courts should have been included in the report.
There were a large number of questions that had been left unanswered, he said. He would appreciate it if by Wednesday the delegation could send a detailed reply to all the questions raised. He hoped that the next report would be much fuller. The purpose of the dialogue was not to criticize, but to help improve the human rights situation in the country.
Ms. ABREU DE POLANCO (Dominican Republic) apologized for the shortcomings in the report. She assured the Committee that the delegation had come to New York to give as full an account as possible of the issues at hand. She understood that one of the aims of the Committee was to work with countries to overcome obstacles to full implementation of the Covenant. That was the direction her Government wished to take.
* *** *
Seventy-first Session
23 March 2001
1907th Meeting (PM)
The situation of Haitian workers was among the issues raised this afternoon by expert members of the Human Rights Committee as it concluded consideration of the fourth periodic report of the Dominican Republic on its compliance with the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights. Experts also expressed concern with regard to the existence of military and police courts, the question of street children, freedom of expression and access to public information.
Describing the situation of Haitian workers in the Dominican Republic, a member of the Dominican delegation said there were hundreds of Haitians who tried to enter the country illegally. For humanitarian reasons, an unspecified number of Haitians had been allowed to take jobs in the informal sector, and now they had become a part of the society. Dominican immigration authorities avoided separating families in the repatriation process. The Government was trying to work with undocumented workers in its country, and non-governmental organizations were involved.
Another member of the delegation added that Haitian construction workers could request six-month working permits based on their contracts, which could be extended by another six months. Haitians could move freely throughout the country and had a right to education, including education in the French language.
The delegation also gave detailed responses to a number of the issues raised, including the status of the country’s military and police courts and the country’s labour laws.
In his closing remarks, Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati of India, Committee Chairman, congratulated the delegation on the Government’s efforts to improve the human rights situation in the Dominican Republic. As experts had pointed out, however, the report presented was inadequate and unsatisfactory. It merely set out legal provisions, incompletely, and said nothing at all about what was happening on the ground. There were a large number of questions which had been left unanswered, he said. He hoped the next report would be fuller.
The Committee will meet again on Monday, 26 March, at 10 a.m. to take up the initial report of Uzbekistan on compliance with the Covenant.
Background
The Human Rights Committee met this afternoon to continue its consideration of the fourth periodic report of the Dominican Republic on its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (document CCPR/C/DOM/99/3).
(For more background information and summary of the report, see Press Release HR/CT/596, issued 23 March.)
Questions by Experts
An expert asked how the Covenant was realized in practice and how it could be incorporated into Government in such a way that it would not be overlooked. He also asked how long trials took and how many people were in prison for which offences. He wanted to know if the Dominican Republic had a public defender system and how legal aid became available to people who ran afoul of the law. He asked whether the military were “confined to the barracks” of if they were involved in civil life in an inappropriate way. He also requested more information on legal procedures regarding expulsion and on refoulement. When the Government expelled or extradited someone, did it assure itself that that person was not exposed to torture in the recipient country?
Another expert asked what the Government’s view was on special justice for law enforcement officials, specifically, did convictions take place in situations where the law enforcement institution was expecting the very behaviour that was in question. He also asked for more information about allegations of instances of torture by members of the police and the military. Regarding youthful detainees, he said a new facility especially for youthful offenders had been constructed but, according to his information, had never been used for that purpose, and asked for the reason for that. He also wondered whether information was correct that prison guards were law enforcement and military people and not specialized guards.
The last expert in the question session said he was particularly concerned about police officers who freely shoot at civilians. The fact that some 200 people had been killed in a short time was alarming. He did not understand why the police were not tried by normal courts but by so called police courts. He wanted adequate factual information on matters such as composition of the courts, the manner in which court officers were appointed and on what qualification.
Responses by Delegation
Rhadys Abreu de Polanco (Dominican Republic), Ambassador responsible for Human Rights in the Foreign Affairs Ministry, noted that one of the strongest concerns raised by the Committee was about the police courts.
Lieutenant-General JOSE FRANCISCO CADENA MOQUETE (Dominican Republic) said that several members of the Committee had expressed concern about a case where four men had lost their lives. They had been committing an assault on a woman and had exchanged fire with the police. A member of the police had died in the exchange, and the four men had also died. A police court had found certain of the police officers guilty. The police appeals court had exonerated the officers on the grounds that they were acting in their own defence. The case had gone on to the Supreme Court of Justice, where it was currently being considered.
He then said a case where several Haitians had lost their lives at the hands of members of the Dominican armed forces had been given to the mixed military and police court. No sentence had yet been given. Military and police jurisdiction had been applied because the law gave those courts the right to hear the cases. The question of jurisdiction was being discussed internally at the moment in the Dominican Republic. Various elements -- including non-governmental organizations -- in the country felt the courts were unconstitutional, and a case on the matter was currently before the country’s Supreme Court.
He then read out a document which, in his opinion, provided a justification for the courts’ existence. Article 63 of the Constitution established the judicial powers of the various judicial bodies in the country, he said, citing a number of laws that established the military and police courts.
An expert said an analysis of Dominican Republic law was not necessary --rather what was needed was an analysis of what political and social necessity had given rise to the law.
Lieutenant-General MOQUETTE (Dominican Republic) said such courts were not a special privilege. There were also traffic, youth and land courts, for example. Military or police members were not like ordinary citizens. They did not, for example, have the freedom to travel to other countries without permission. They had renounced such rights to serve the country and combat crime. It would seem that the police were not being regarded as human beings. He could provide a whole list of policemen who had fallen in the line of duty –- their rights were not being defended. It was considered a monstrosity that the law gave the police special courts, but not a monstrosity that laws in other States established, for example, the death penalty. There was a contradiction there.
He then read an editorial which stated that the national police could not be a laboratory experiment, even if the goal was an ideal institution –- because the risk was run that society would go unprotected. Those criticizing the police failed to note that it was crime, not the police, that was the problem.
PRAFULLACHANDRA NATWARLAL BHAGWATI of India, Committee Chairman, asked the head of the delegation that responses be limited to answering questions posed by the Committee.
He said it was appropriate that judges would have knowledge of military law since the national police had a military structure and discipline, although the police were formally civilian.
Addressing concerns about prisons, Mr. MOQUETE (Dominican Republic) said his country had 31 prisons. There were 15,263 prisoners, among them a total of 9,515 in preventive detention, a percentage of 63 per cent. Preventive custody affected any person who was accused of committing a crime against the life, physical integrity or property of a person or against public property, and any person accused of certain acts such as drug trafficking, arson or terrorism.
There were two stages in the process of an investigation. The investigative stage should take no longer than two months but could be extended by one or two months. The trial stage could vary in length, as there was a dual jurisdiction system in the Dominican Republic, and any case could go through lower and higher courts. That stage could take a number of months. The long preventive detention in his country was the result of the fact that there were few courts. Last month a law had been passed to double the number of criminal courts. Progress had been made, he said, as the percentage had fallen from 81 per cent on 1997 to 63 per cent.
More resources had been allotted to transport prisoners from prisons to courts at the appropriate time. Another Government measure was aimed at improving the health of prisoners. Prisoner registration had been improved and would be computerized this year. He emphasized that the Government had taken pains to deal with separation on the basis of sex and age in prisons. There were two prisons for minors, and a second floor of a prison had totally been refurbished to house minors. Although women were held in the same institutions as men, the women's sections were completely separate from the men.
Since the six to seven months that the Government had been in power, 500 prisoners had been pardoned. The Government took great pains to ensure that all prisons followed the same policy. There was also training in place so that independent prison officers could be trained replacing police and military personnel.
Prisons had been seen as warehouses for prisoners where torture took place. Nowadays, in each important police headquarters, a civilian lawyer working with the Prosecutor’s Office was available 24 hours a day, thus ensuring that no torture took place to force a confession.
Efforts to manage the prison system had proved their worth, he said. Every day, truckloads of new mattresses arrived and the prisoners now had televisions. Cells had been cleaned up. These initiatives had been undertaken to bring the system in line with the stipulations of the Covenant.
JULIO CESAR CASTANOS GUZMAN (Dominican Republic) said aliens had the same civil rights as nationals in the Dominican Republic. Article 11 of the Civil Code ensured that.
He said measures had been taken to protect children from commercial and sexual exploitation. A court had been set up to hear the relevant cases. Statistics were not available, but there had been severe sentences passed down under this jurisdiction. Efforts were made to see whether there were minors being subjected to exploitation in major cities. When cases had been discovered, efforts were made to penalize those responsible, often resulting in imprisonment and subsequent expulsion.
Article 11 of the Constitution provided for an exception regarding granting citizenship to the children of individuals in transit through the Dominican Republic. He cited the relevant law on the subject. The Dominican Republic subscribed to agreements for agricultural workers with the Haitian Government. Many illegal Haitians crossed the border into the country. At the same time, there were many who resided legally. The children of Haitians living legally in the country received citizenship -- children of those in transit did not. They were eligible for Haitian citizenship, he pointed out.
His Government did not want the Dominican Republic to be the destination of adventurers, he said. There had been serious problems with elections because of problems related to the question of nationality.
RANDOLFO NUNES VARGAS (Dominican Republic), answering questions regarding immigrants, said that according to estimates there were 340,000 Haitians present in the Dominican Republic, 36 per cent of whom had identification papers. About 1,600 Haitians had gotten six-month work permits, and around 9,000 Haitians had another type of document. The Dominican Republic was open country to all nationalities.
Only undocumented persons had been subject to expulsion, he said, as was specified under the law. Regarding workers in the sugar industry, he said their return was specified in the work contract. The Government had always been flexible in cases of informal workers, however. A new system had been implemented in which workers could obtain six-month work permits.
In 1996 the immigration law had been updated. Government programmes had been announced to improve health, education, transportation and other areas in order to increase the standard of living of all workers. Immigration and work laws would have social provisions included. All immigration regulations were compatible with the Covenant, he said.
Ms. ABREU DE POLANCO (Dominican Republic) said that after the amendment of the Constitution in 1994, a National Council of the Magistrature had been set up and there was now a national school for magistrates, where human rights courses were given. In August 2000, the President of the Republic had created a human rights organization within the military to provide training. Work was going on with the assistance of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to promote and protect human rights.
Various groups had visited the country, she said, and in 2000 a seminar on the preparation of human rights reports had been held. Work was being undertaken at both the governmental and non-governmental level to ensure better dissemination of information.
Questions and Comments from Experts
An expert expressed concern that a number of matters had only been lightly touched on and that previous Committee recommendations had not been carried out. She asked for further clarification on the status of Haitian workers in the Dominican Republic. The situation of those workers had not improved and seemed to have gotten worse lately. It seemed that there was forced recruitment by militia members of Haitians, who obliged them to work long hours for little money in the sugarcane fields.
She asked if a proposed "regularization" of Haitian workers had taken place. There was a certain percentage of workers with no status in the country. That lack of status made them vulnerable to, among other things, expulsion. Just three months ago there had been some sort of operation where, simultaneously, hundreds of people had been arrested and repatriated without any proceeding whatsoever. How were such expulsions applied? she asked. What recourse did a person faced with expulsion have? She asked for statistics on how many people without documents had been expelled during the past year.
Another expert asked if there were two types of Haitians -- non-citizens and citizens of Haitian origin -- and if Haitians were not a linguistic and ethnic minority in the Dominican Republic. He said there were allegations of discrimination against Haitians, based on ethnicity and colour. Were their deportations based on colour? He also wanted to know if the provisions under article 13 of the Covenant were applied in every case of expulsion. Were Dominican Republic citizens of Haitian descent deported?
Regarding children of Haitians, he asked if Haitians were living in the territory who were not citizen because their parents or grandparents were considered to be in transit at the time of their birth.
Another expert remarked that the answers provided to a question about street children were not very clarifying. How many years could one be a non-immigrant? Was there a time period beyond which a person could apply for the status of immigrant? Did children of non-immigrant people have the right to health care and education? She had been informed that it was difficult to get information on the proceedings of police courts, which ran contrary to the freedom of expression. She also wanted to know why the police did not have freedom of religion and why they were not allowed to vote, something which was incompatible with the Covenant.
Another expert observed that he had not heard any substantial comment on the questions he had raised in the morning on the status of women in the Dominican Republic and the independent human rights monitoring agencies. He, too, sought further information on the situation of Haitians in the Dominican Republic.
He said many different figures on the numbers of Haitians in the country were available. However many there were, he felt he had to take issue with the stated notion that there was no discrimination in the country. There appeared, for example, to be ample evidence of exceedingly poor living conditions, restriction of movement and forced expulsion of Haitians. He could not accept the statement that there were no ethnic or religious minorities in Haiti –- Haitians were a minority in the country.
An expert asked for information about the working condition of children. The report stated that children under 14 were prohibited from working. He wanted to know if people below that age were working. He also wanted to know, among other things, how many hours a week adults could work and why children under 18 were prohibited from working as messengers. Could Haitians working on sugar plantations form trade unions? He also sought more information on general trade union policy in the country.
Ms. ABREU DE POLANCA (Dominican Republic), answering questions about repatriation of Haitians, said inspectors worked with Haitian officials. At the border, a final verification of the legal status would take place before expatriations, and the Haitian Consul had the right to participate. Non-governmental organizations were also invited to participate. There was no danger at all that a deportation would be illegal or a violation of human rights.
She said the Dominican Republic experienced different levels of economic growth, leading to migration flows. There were hundreds of Haitians who tried to enter the country illegally. For humanitarian reasons, an unspecified number of Haitians had been allowed to take jobs in the informal sector, and now they had become a part of the society. Dominican immigration authorities avoided separating families in the repatriation process. There had been contacts between the Foreign Ministers of both countries. The Government was trying to work with undocumented workers in its country and non-governmental organizations were involved.
RANDOLFO NUNES VARGAS (Dominican Republic) added that Haitian construction workers could request six-month working permits based on their contracts, which could be extended by another six months. Haitians could move freely throughout the country and had a right to education, including education in the French language. Discrimination on the basis of race or language did not exist, he said.
Ms. Abreu de Polanco (Dominican Republic) noted that there was a publication that stated that Haiti recognized that improved conditions existed in the Dominican Republic. On child labour, she said the International Labor Organization (ILO) was using a Dominican Republic work programme as a model. The regional director had recently been in the country to speak on child labour and had used the Dominican Republic as an example. Under the programme, children were taken out of the workplace and a monthly amount was paid to their parents, who then had an obligation to send them to school. The system had been very effective. She said answers would be given in writing to the questions on the Ombudsman’s Office and the status of women.
Lieutenant Colonel GARCIA LARA of the Dominican Republic gave further information regarding free access to information in the police courts, and assured the Committee that he would provide any further information needed. The Constitution stated that it was an obligation for all citizens to vote. Those who had lost their citizenship could not vote, nor could those serving in the armed forces or the police. On freedom of religion and association, he said the police was a body of the political system and such systems had an ideological basis –- a member of a political system could not sustain an idea different from that system. He said police courts should be reformed, but not dismantled. He would be sending the Committee his arguments justifying the existence of the courts.
Ms. ABREU DE POLANCO (Dominican Republic) said she felt most questions had been answered. Those that had not been addressed would be sent in writing.
Asking additional questions, an expert wanted to know if the delegation was aware of allegations that before the final check at the border before expulsion, identification documents were destroyed. Another expert insisted on an answer to the question of second generation undocumented Haitians.
CESAR CASTANOS GUZMAN (Dominican Republic) said that during an arrest, the person was asked for identification. In case of temporary farm workers with contracts, it was assumed they would return to their country after their contract expired, but they could ask to become legal residents. There was a large number of illegal people, however, and one also needed to look at the historical factors affecting the relationship between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Dominican nationality was granted in accordance with the Constitution.
Regarding second generation Haitians, he said that problem would be examined in the next census. To register children in his country, parents of all nationalities, including Dominicans, needed documents. There was no discrimination involved. There were many Haitians not registered, but also many Dominicans. Article 1 of the Covenant stated that all people had the right to self-determination and the Dominican Republic had that right as well.
He added that Haiti was one of the poorest countries in the world and that the Dominican Republic was trying to help. It could not, however, solve all the problems by itself and the international community also had a responsibility.
Reacting to a statement that some civil servants did not enjoy the same rights as citizens, and that that was in accordance with domestic law and the Constitution, an expert remarked that the whole purpose of today’s exercise was to determine whether domestic law of a country was in conformity with the Covenant.
Mr. BHAGWATI of India, Committee Chairman, said the Committee had been glad to resume the dialogue. He congratulated the delegation on the Government’s efforts to improve the human rights situation in the Dominican Republic. As experts had pointed out, however, the report was inadequate and unsatisfactory. It merely set out legal provisions, incompletely, and said nothing at all about what was happening on the ground, as the Committee’s guidelines required. The answers given by the delegation could have been incorporated in the report, which would have helped with the dialogue.
He said there were several areas of serious concern that remained to be resolved. Most of those concerns had been expressed by the Committee in its concluding observations on the third periodic report. Those issues had not been addressed. The Committee had urged at that time that all steps be taken to ensure that members of the police and military were tried by ordinary courts. A justification for the continuation of special courts should have been included in the report.
There were a large number of questions that had been left unanswered, he said. He would appreciate it if by Wednesday the delegation could send a detailed reply to all the questions raised. He hoped that the next report would be much fuller. The purpose of the dialogue was not to criticize, but to help improve the human rights situation in the country.
Ms. ABREU DE POLANCO (Dominican Republic) apologized for the shortcomings in the report. She assured the Committee that the delegation had come to New York to give as full an account as possible of the issues at hand. She understood that one of the aims of the Committee was to work with countries to overcome obstacles to full implementation of the Covenant. That was the direction her Government wished to take.
* *** *