Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
REPUBLIC OF KOREA PRESENTS REPORTS TO COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
11 August 2003
Share
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
63rd session
11 August 2003
Committee Discusses Situation in
Lao People’s Democratic Republic Without a Report
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has concluded its review of the eleventh and twelfth reports of the Republic of Korea on how that country implements the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
The Committee also discussed the situation in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic under its review procedure for countries who are at least five years late for their initial or periodic reports. The situation was discussed in the absence of a report and a delegation.
Introducing the reports of the Republic of Korea, Eui-yong Chung, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations Office at Geneva and Head of the delegation, said there had been significant improvements in the field of human rights in the Republic of Korea over the past several years. Respect for human rights was a cornerstone of domestic as well as foreign policies, and the Government had gone about implementing various reform measures to this end. There could be no place for the mistreatment or prejudice of persons according to race, colour, descent or ethnic origin in this world. However, such prejudice still persisted in many forms, and the struggle to eradicate discrimination needed to be continued as a high priority with a steadfast commitment by the Government and people of Korea.
Committee Experts including Chengyuan Tang, the group’s country Rapporteur for the reports of the Republic of Korea, raised a series of questions, including on the increase of the number of migrants in an irregular situation who suffered from their precarious plight; information missing from the report, for example on discrimination against migrant women; the granting of the right to vote to foreigners which would contribute towards eliminating discrimination; and racial prejudice against children from mixed marriages, particularly Amer-asian children of Korean mothers.
Taking part in the debates, which were held over two meetings, were Committee Experts Mohamed Aly Thiam, Régis de Gouttes, Morten Kjaerum, Luis Valencia Rodriguez, Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai, Nourredine Amir, Alexei S. Avtonomov, Kurt Herndl, Mario Jorge Yutzis, Jose A Lindgren Alves, Marc Bossuyt, Ion Diaconu (Chairman speaking as Expert), Mario Jorge Yutzis, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, Agha Shahi, and Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr.
The final conclusions and recommendations on the reports of the Republic of Korea will be issued towards the end of the session, which concludes on 22 August. In preliminary remarks, Mr. Tang said all of the questions raised had been answered, and there were no further questions or comments from the Committee, which proved their satisfactory nature. Much detailed information and clarification had been provided, and this was appreciated, for example concerning the rights of the ethnic Chinese, industrial trainees, and refugees.
In concluding remarks, Ji-ah Paik, Director of the Human Rights and Social Affairs Division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, said the debate had been useful and productive, and the comments made by the Committee would provide a useful guidance for the Government of Korea in its untiring efforts for the elimination of racial discrimination, since it was strongly committed to human rights.
The Committee then discussed the situation in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic under its review procedure for countries which are at least five years late for their initial or periodic reports. Concluding remarks on Laos will be issued towards the end of the session.
Nourredine Amir, as the Group’s rapporteur for the country, said the Committee had officially asked many questions, but the Laos Government had never answered them. Laos appeared to have a will to be isolated, although surrounded by a number of important countries in a very sensitive region. Laos was among the least developed countries in Southeast Asia, but had taken no legislative, judicial or any other measures to implement the provisions of the International Convention in domestic law. The Constitution of Laos set forth the notion that the State was pursuing a policy of unity among all the population, but this did not explain the real existence of racial discrimination against the Hmong, a minority which required promotion and protection, and the lack of religious freedom. A document should be drafted on the emergency situation that was current in Laos, he added.
During the Friday afternoon meeting, Committee Expert Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr spoke of a letter sent by the Fédération Internationale des Droits de l’Homme to the Committee, requesting that the suspension of Israel’s law banning family reunification, adopted on 31 July, be reviewed urgently. Mr. Aboul-Nasr asked that this be the case very soon, with a debate on this subject only, and that a Rapporteur be assigned to this subject.
Clarifying this issue on Monday morning, the Chairman noted that the Commission on Human Rights had already adopted a resolution on this issue. A discussion would be held on Thursday, 14 August at midday on the basis of the urgent procedure. The Israeli Embassy had been informed of the issue and had been encouraged to send a delegation to express the views of the Israeli Government.
Members of the Korean delegation included Youn-soo Lee, Counsellor at the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea; Jeong-hyun, First Secretary, Permanent Mission; Hyun-chul Kim, Prosecutor and Deputy Director, Human Rights Division, Ministry of Justice; Sang-beom Lim, Deputy Director, Human Rights and Social Affairs Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Hee-bang Noh, Assistant Director, Curriculum Policy Division, Ministry of Education and Human Resources Department; Su-jin Kim, Deputy Director, Foreign Workers Affair Team, Ministry of Labour; and Kang-suk Lee, Assistant Director, Incheon International Airport Immigration Office, Ministry of Justice.
As two of the 169 States parties to the International Convention, the Republic of Korea and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic must present periodic reports to the Committee on efforts to eradicate such bias.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will begin consideration of the report of Bolivia (CERD/C/409.Add.3).
Reports of the Republic of Korea
The eleventh and twelfth reports, contained in (CERD/C/426/Add.2), describe progress in the field of human rights and in particular in the fight against racial discrimination. They detail general information about the Republic of Korea, including the population, respect for human rights, and information about foreigners and refugees. They also contain information about articles 2 to 7 of the International Convention.
The Republic of Korea is an ethnically homogenous country, however, the ethnic composition of the population is not clearly documented. The Government of the Republic of Korea has undertaken a variety of measures to promote democraticisation and human rights. In line with these efforts, and in recognition of the promotion of human rights as a major foreign policy objective, the Government has actively participated in international endeavours to improve human rights, under the astute leadership of the United Nations. The Government has also made strenuous efforts to meet international standards and live up to increasing global expectations in the field of human rights.
The Constitution of the Republic of Korea upheld the precepts of fundamental human rights, based on respect for human dignity, the worth of individuals, and equality of all before the law. These constitutional principles are consistently incorporated into national legislation as well as into the political, economic, social, cultural and other fields of life in the country.
Introduction of Reports
EUI-YONG CHUNG, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations Office at Geneva and Head of the delegation, said there was sincere appreciation for the many achievements of the Committee over the last three decades, during which it had been a pioneer in monitoring States’ compliance with the international human rights convention. It was hoped that this opportunity for consideration of the reports would serve not only to review the implementation of the Government of the Republic of Korea, but also to help facilitate its faithful implementation in the future.
There had been significant improvements in the field of human rights in the Republic of Korea over the past several years. Respect for human rights was a cornerstone of domestic as well as foreign policies, and the Government had gone about implementing various reform measures to this end. Among them, the launch of the National Human Rights Commission in 2001 had been a landmark for the promotion and protection of human rights.
However, far from complacent with this progress, the Government was committed to continuing to make efforts towards further improvements, and one of the major policy goals was the elimination of all forms of unjust discrimination. Racism and xenophobia were primary obstacles to the protection and promotion of human rights, and they often lay at the root of many conflicts. There could be no place for the mistreatment or prejudice of persons according to race, colour, descent or ethnic origin in this world. However, they still persisted in many forms, and the struggle to eradicate discrimination needed to be continued as a high priority with a steadfast commitment.
The people of the Republic of Korea understood well that as the globalized society came ever closer, it was all the more important to promote tolerance, respect and understanding among cultures and races. It was further recognized that society had much to benefit from the interchange of cultures and celebration of diversity. Any doctrine of racial discrimination had no justification in theory or practice. However, no country was perfect in the protection of human rights, and the Government of the Republic of Korea was prepared to listen to any views presented by the members of the Committee and to take them into serious consideration in mapping out future policies and measures to improve the implementation of the Convention.
The Government of the Republic of Korea committed itself to make the utmost efforts for the faithful implementation of the International Convention and would continue to take steps to further protect the rights of foreigners and minorities in that country.
Another member of the delegation, JI-AH PAIK, Director of the Human Rights and Social Affairs Division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, then said the delegation looked forward to a frank exchange of dialogue and opinions. The report mainly covered administrative, legislative and judicial measures taken since the last report had been submitted in 1998. A more solid foundation had been laid for the protection of human rights in the Republic of Korea. The Committee had expressed concern for foreign migrant workers and industrial trainees for many years, and the Government of Korea had taken significant steps to improve their situation, as it had also done for refugees. Basic human rights also applied to foreigners, and the only restrictions were on grounds of citizenship, such as the right to vote. Each and every comment of the Committee would be carefully examined with the aim of using it to improve the promotion and protection of human rights in Korea.
Discussion
CHENGYUAN TANG, Committee Expert who served as country rapporteur for the reports of the Republic of Korea, said the reports submitted spelled out what measures had been taken by the Republic of Korea since its last report. The Republic of Korea needed to do work to ensure that article 2 was fully respected in human rights law. He then recalled the recommendations made by the Committee following consideration of the previous report. In comparison with these recommendations and what had taken place in the Republic of Korea, it was noted that improvements still remained to be done in certain areas, although significant progress had also been made. On the legal level, particularly concerning sanctions for violations of human rights, there was a need to strengthen the provisions of domestic law in order to fulfill the provisions of the International Convention. He asked whether there had been incidents of racial discrimination in the Republic of Korea in the past, and if so how had these been dealt with.
The report seemed to indicate that there was no discrimination as such. However, there were sometimes aggressions, mainly verbal, against certain persons, and this needed to be ended, by whatever means necessary. More details were needed as to how the Republic of Korea would deal with this problem. Recommendations had been made regarding foreign migrant workers, whose numbers had risen steadily in the Republic of Korea, and it was pointed out that these should enjoy the same rights and treatment as Korean workers.
With regard to refugees, in addition to the International Convention on Refugees and the Protocol on Refugees, the country had amended the immigration law positively, with refugees given longer to submit their application for asylum. A request was made for more information on what happened to those who had their applications rejected.
The Government of the Republic of Korea clearly gave great importance to the recommendations of the Committee, and had implemented some of them, but work remained to be done, as foreign workers were still victims of discrimination under various forms. The issue of foreign prostitutes was a very complex issue, since many of those coming into the Republic of Korea had been forced into prostitution. Once in Korea, they were exploited, unpaid and forced to continue to work. These young women came from many countries, and their situation was very poor. What measures had been taken to protect these extremely vulnerable women, he asked. As for minorities, particularly children of mixed marriages, there was a need for further information. There had been great improvement in the situation of the Chinese minority in the country.
The Government of Korea attached importance to dialogue with the Committee, and had sent a large delegation, and this was excellent. The report confirmed that the problems raised by the Committee had been dealt with by legal measures, and work had been done to apply these laws. This was extremely encouraging, and was appreciated.
Other members of the Committee also raised questions. They asked, among other things, questions on such varied topics as the lack of information on acts of discrimination; whether the Human Rights Commission would help to resolve this issue and other issues related to the powers of that body; the increase of the number of migrants in an irregular situation who suffered from their precarious plight; information missing from the report, for example on the discrimination that made victims of migrant women; measures adopted by the Government to prevent a second 11 September; provisions of article 5 of the International Convention and its implementation in Korea, notably article 5.b. with regard to arbitrary detention; the granting of the right to vote to foreigners which would contribute towards eliminating discrimination; the industrial trainee system; racial prejudice against children from mixed marriages, particularly Amerasian children of Korean mothers; the need to ban racist organizations and groupings that incited racial discrimination; and whether the Republic of Korea was in fact becoming a multi-cultural population due to the process of globalization and the increase in migration.
The Committee also noted the wealth of information contained in the report.
Responding, JI-AH PAIK, Director of the Human Rights and Social Affairs Division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, offered the delegation’s sincere appreciation for the constructive thoughts, questions and suggestions offered by the Committee, which had already served to assist in the continuing reflection on how to increase the effectiveness of the Republic of Korea’s efforts to combat all forms of racial discrimination.
With regard to national legislation for the implementation of the Convention, a member of the delegation said the International Convention could be invoked as the same source of law as domestic laws, however, there had been no case yet where this had occurred. It could also be invoked when judging the constitutionality of domestic legislation.
As for migrant workers including industrial trainees, it was expected that with the introduction of the Employment Permit System, many problems that foreign workers had faced would be effectively solved. In the case of industrial trainees, only a portion of the Labour Standards Act, Minimum Wages Act, Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Industrial Safety Sanitation Act and National Health Insurance Act were applicable to trainees. In terms of remedy in the case of the violation of the rights of foreign workers, matters could be reported at local labour offices, and the remedy procedure was the same as that for domestic workers. The possibility of acceding to the International Convention on Migrant Workers and their families would be examined in due course.
The number of refugees accepted in the Republic of Korea was currently 12 people. The Government had actively adopted various measures to improve the system, and with these changes was trying to level with international standards on refugee issues. The Ministry of Justice had set the refugee issue as a priority this year. With regard to ethnic Chinese, permission had to be sought for naturalization, and previous nationality had to be renounced. If one parent of a child was a Korean national, however, the child acquired Korean nationality at birth.
The rights protected by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, excluding those that were premised on Korean citizenship, applied equally to foreigners. If these rights were violated, victims could file a complaint to a Korean court in relation thereof. There was no institutional discrimination against ethnic minorities and mixed ethnicity, however, racial prejudice and verbal abuse were considered to still exist. The Republic of Korea recognized that education was one of the most important methods for the elimination of racial discrimination; further, recent rapid internationalisation had created a greater understanding and tolerance for other cultures and races, thereby dissipating such prejudiced views in Korean society. Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Convention and human rights stipulated in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights were taught comprehensively in various subjects for the elementary and secondary school curricula.
With regard to trafficking in persons and domestic violence, this crime called for international cooperation, and the international community needed to cooperate closely in order to come up with concrete counter-measures to deal with such crimes. The Korean Government considered trafficking in persons as one of the most serious violations of human rights, and had taken various measures to intensify its efforts to address this heinous crime, including the establishment of an Inter-agency Committee to Prevent Trafficking in Persons in July 2001. Measures had also been taken to prevent the crime, as well as to protect its victims, and the Government had actively participated in international cooperation to prevent trafficking in persons.
Preliminary Remarks
CHENGYUANG TANG, Committee Rapporteur for the Republic of Korea, said his general impression was that the delegation had seriously prepared for the meeting and had offered excellent responses to the enquiries of the Committee. All of the questions raised had been answered, and there were no further questions or comments from the Committee, which proved their satisfactory nature. Much detailed information and clarification had been provided, and this was appreciated, for example concerning the rights of the ethnic Chinese, industrial trainees, and refugees.
With regard to article four, this needed to be incorporated into domestic legislation, since only then would the article be properly implemented, and it was hoped that in the next periodic report more information would be provided on this issue should any new developments occur. The delegation had had a very positive exchange of views with the Committee.
Concluding Remarks by the Delegation
JI-AH PAIK, Director at the Human Rights and Social Affairs Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, said in concluding remarks there was sincere appreciation for the Committee, since the two days debate had been useful and productive, and the comments would be a useful guidance for the Government of the Republic of Korea in its untiring efforts for the elimination of racial discrimination, since it was strongly committed to human rights.
Consideration of the Situation in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Under its review procedure, the Committee then began review of the situation in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. The Committee was in possession of the fifth periodic report of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (CERD/C/105.Add.5), submitted in June 1984, but not of the sixth to fifteenth periodic reports of that country, which had not been submitted.
NOURREDINE AMIR, the Group’s rapporteur for the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, said the issue was difficult since all information received with regard to the Hmong minority was very difficult to bear. The relations between the country and the Committee, following all the appeals launched for it to submit its report, had remained without a response, other than that the report would be submitted next year.
No report had been received for 18 years, and this was the only country with such a huge delay. Official reasons for this were of two types, first the difficulties faced by developing countries; and second, technical difficulties in drafting the report, although an offer of cooperation had been made by the Committee and by the Secretariat. No response had been received to this offer. No response had been received to articles 2 and 7 either.
The nature of the regime in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic could be determined through its Constitution, which was basically a communist one, although containing some elements for a free market, which were however limited. Laos was not a signatory to the twelve essential human rights conventions, although it had signed the International Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Laos had submitted information to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which had been made available to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, but this had not helped to clarify the situation, since it was often contradictory, since, for example, different reports respectively claimed 47 and 68 ethnic minorities. A certain amount of information concerning Laos gave information on the political structure of the country, but this was derived only from official data. The Committee had posed many questions, but the Laos Government had never answered these.
Laos appeared to have a will to be isolated, although surrounded by a number of important countries in a very sensitive region. Laos was among the least developed countries in Southeast Asia, but had taken no legislative, judicial or any other measure to implement the provisions of article two of the International Convention, nor indeed did it appear to have included the provisions of any other article in domestic law. The Constitution of Laos set forth the notion that the State was pursuing a policy of unity among all the population, but this did not explain the real existence of racial discrimination against the Hmong minority which required promotion and protection.
The Hmong lived in the northern part of Laos, which was near the Southern part of China, where Hmong also lived. The Laotian Hmong represented 10 per cent of the country’s population. Many were today refugees, and many more were currently living in the jungle of Laos, with no access to basic services, unprotected in any way, and barely surviving a horrific situation. They were subjected to social discrimination, as well as to a systematic policy of displacement, which had the net result of increasing discrimination against them. There was an urgent need for them to be protected by the United Nations and the international community and to have their rights guaranteed. There also appeared to be clear evidence of religious discrimination against all forms of religion, even though religious freedom was guaranteed by the Constitution.
Education figures also displayed evidence of discrimination, with apparently the majority of the ethnic minorities never having attended school. The Lao Government had been trying to shape a communist population in rural areas, with these people supposed to live purely from agriculture, with no need for academic learning. The Government had remained quiet in the face of demands from minorities to have their own identity. Laotians in general had called for a multi-party political system and for elections for a new National Assembly, but this had not taken place.
None of the conclusions or recommendations of the Committee had been respected by the Government of Laos to date. Mr. Amir concluded that the Communist party had taken power in Laos in 1975. It had cut off all contacts with the Committee since 1984, and had arrested those whose job was to report on the situation in the country. When the Committee had met without representatives of Laos, it had asked the Government to submit a report. The Government had recently declared it would submit a report in 2004, but it had broken its promises before. There was therefore an exceptional situation, and the a Special Rapporteur on racial discrimination should visit the country, not only for the Committee but also for all the human rights committees, and he would, by his presence and by his report, improve the situation, in particular for refugees. This was an urgent matter, and should be given urgent consideration.
The Lao Government should be brought to understand that it was necessary to have a report on this issue, and that the report of 2004 should provide responses to the points raised by the Committee that should have already been dealt with. A document should be drafted on the emergency situation that was currently in Laos.
MARIO JORGE YUTZIS, as acting Chairman replacing Ion Diaconu, suggested that a procedural discussion be held in order to determine the form of this document, and that it should include suggestions for the Government of Laos
The Committee then discussed various issues related to Laos, including the lack of information provided by Laos and the lack of cooperation of its Government; the evidence provided by non-governmental organizations on arbitrary detentions, lack of impartiality by the judiciary, restrictions on the freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of movement and freedom of religion; the issue of ethnic discrimination against the hill tribes who were the victims of many forms of discrimination, including attacks on their cultural identity; the ill-treatment of refugees returned to Laos; whether the Committee should move on to the rapid response procedure and tell the Government that the report must be submitted in 2004 by a delegation; the dire peril of the Hmong people; the immediate visit of the Special Rapporteur to Laos; and false accusations made against the foreign press, who were then subject to arbitrary detention.
The Committee suggested, among other things, that the emergency procedure be begun as a matter of urgency, and that the visit of the Special Rapporteur be expedited as far as possible, in order to save as many lives as possible, and that pressure be put on the Laos Government to accept his visit and render him every facility said Experts. The Government of Laos needed to respect its obligations, and ought to be encouraged to do so. It appeared to be attempting to live up to its commitments, but this might be just a diversionary tactic, the Committee members said.
The situation was alarming, other Experts said, and there was no need to waste more time proving this; the Committee needed to be more pro-active and draw the attention of the General Assembly and of the Security Council, as well as other organs including UNICEF and WHO to the issue, asking for their help to provide assistance to Laos as a matter of urgency. The entire international community needed to react by bringing as much pressure to bear on the Government to fulfill its obligations.
Concluding, the Committee agreed that there was a need to react urgently and to do its utmost to find a solution to the issue.
* *** *
63rd session
11 August 2003
Committee Discusses Situation in
Lao People’s Democratic Republic Without a Report
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has concluded its review of the eleventh and twelfth reports of the Republic of Korea on how that country implements the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
The Committee also discussed the situation in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic under its review procedure for countries who are at least five years late for their initial or periodic reports. The situation was discussed in the absence of a report and a delegation.
Introducing the reports of the Republic of Korea, Eui-yong Chung, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations Office at Geneva and Head of the delegation, said there had been significant improvements in the field of human rights in the Republic of Korea over the past several years. Respect for human rights was a cornerstone of domestic as well as foreign policies, and the Government had gone about implementing various reform measures to this end. There could be no place for the mistreatment or prejudice of persons according to race, colour, descent or ethnic origin in this world. However, such prejudice still persisted in many forms, and the struggle to eradicate discrimination needed to be continued as a high priority with a steadfast commitment by the Government and people of Korea.
Committee Experts including Chengyuan Tang, the group’s country Rapporteur for the reports of the Republic of Korea, raised a series of questions, including on the increase of the number of migrants in an irregular situation who suffered from their precarious plight; information missing from the report, for example on discrimination against migrant women; the granting of the right to vote to foreigners which would contribute towards eliminating discrimination; and racial prejudice against children from mixed marriages, particularly Amer-asian children of Korean mothers.
Taking part in the debates, which were held over two meetings, were Committee Experts Mohamed Aly Thiam, Régis de Gouttes, Morten Kjaerum, Luis Valencia Rodriguez, Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai, Nourredine Amir, Alexei S. Avtonomov, Kurt Herndl, Mario Jorge Yutzis, Jose A Lindgren Alves, Marc Bossuyt, Ion Diaconu (Chairman speaking as Expert), Mario Jorge Yutzis, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, Agha Shahi, and Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr.
The final conclusions and recommendations on the reports of the Republic of Korea will be issued towards the end of the session, which concludes on 22 August. In preliminary remarks, Mr. Tang said all of the questions raised had been answered, and there were no further questions or comments from the Committee, which proved their satisfactory nature. Much detailed information and clarification had been provided, and this was appreciated, for example concerning the rights of the ethnic Chinese, industrial trainees, and refugees.
In concluding remarks, Ji-ah Paik, Director of the Human Rights and Social Affairs Division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, said the debate had been useful and productive, and the comments made by the Committee would provide a useful guidance for the Government of Korea in its untiring efforts for the elimination of racial discrimination, since it was strongly committed to human rights.
The Committee then discussed the situation in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic under its review procedure for countries which are at least five years late for their initial or periodic reports. Concluding remarks on Laos will be issued towards the end of the session.
Nourredine Amir, as the Group’s rapporteur for the country, said the Committee had officially asked many questions, but the Laos Government had never answered them. Laos appeared to have a will to be isolated, although surrounded by a number of important countries in a very sensitive region. Laos was among the least developed countries in Southeast Asia, but had taken no legislative, judicial or any other measures to implement the provisions of the International Convention in domestic law. The Constitution of Laos set forth the notion that the State was pursuing a policy of unity among all the population, but this did not explain the real existence of racial discrimination against the Hmong, a minority which required promotion and protection, and the lack of religious freedom. A document should be drafted on the emergency situation that was current in Laos, he added.
During the Friday afternoon meeting, Committee Expert Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr spoke of a letter sent by the Fédération Internationale des Droits de l’Homme to the Committee, requesting that the suspension of Israel’s law banning family reunification, adopted on 31 July, be reviewed urgently. Mr. Aboul-Nasr asked that this be the case very soon, with a debate on this subject only, and that a Rapporteur be assigned to this subject.
Clarifying this issue on Monday morning, the Chairman noted that the Commission on Human Rights had already adopted a resolution on this issue. A discussion would be held on Thursday, 14 August at midday on the basis of the urgent procedure. The Israeli Embassy had been informed of the issue and had been encouraged to send a delegation to express the views of the Israeli Government.
Members of the Korean delegation included Youn-soo Lee, Counsellor at the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea; Jeong-hyun, First Secretary, Permanent Mission; Hyun-chul Kim, Prosecutor and Deputy Director, Human Rights Division, Ministry of Justice; Sang-beom Lim, Deputy Director, Human Rights and Social Affairs Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Hee-bang Noh, Assistant Director, Curriculum Policy Division, Ministry of Education and Human Resources Department; Su-jin Kim, Deputy Director, Foreign Workers Affair Team, Ministry of Labour; and Kang-suk Lee, Assistant Director, Incheon International Airport Immigration Office, Ministry of Justice.
As two of the 169 States parties to the International Convention, the Republic of Korea and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic must present periodic reports to the Committee on efforts to eradicate such bias.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will begin consideration of the report of Bolivia (CERD/C/409.Add.3).
Reports of the Republic of Korea
The eleventh and twelfth reports, contained in (CERD/C/426/Add.2), describe progress in the field of human rights and in particular in the fight against racial discrimination. They detail general information about the Republic of Korea, including the population, respect for human rights, and information about foreigners and refugees. They also contain information about articles 2 to 7 of the International Convention.
The Republic of Korea is an ethnically homogenous country, however, the ethnic composition of the population is not clearly documented. The Government of the Republic of Korea has undertaken a variety of measures to promote democraticisation and human rights. In line with these efforts, and in recognition of the promotion of human rights as a major foreign policy objective, the Government has actively participated in international endeavours to improve human rights, under the astute leadership of the United Nations. The Government has also made strenuous efforts to meet international standards and live up to increasing global expectations in the field of human rights.
The Constitution of the Republic of Korea upheld the precepts of fundamental human rights, based on respect for human dignity, the worth of individuals, and equality of all before the law. These constitutional principles are consistently incorporated into national legislation as well as into the political, economic, social, cultural and other fields of life in the country.
Introduction of Reports
EUI-YONG CHUNG, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations Office at Geneva and Head of the delegation, said there was sincere appreciation for the many achievements of the Committee over the last three decades, during which it had been a pioneer in monitoring States’ compliance with the international human rights convention. It was hoped that this opportunity for consideration of the reports would serve not only to review the implementation of the Government of the Republic of Korea, but also to help facilitate its faithful implementation in the future.
There had been significant improvements in the field of human rights in the Republic of Korea over the past several years. Respect for human rights was a cornerstone of domestic as well as foreign policies, and the Government had gone about implementing various reform measures to this end. Among them, the launch of the National Human Rights Commission in 2001 had been a landmark for the promotion and protection of human rights.
However, far from complacent with this progress, the Government was committed to continuing to make efforts towards further improvements, and one of the major policy goals was the elimination of all forms of unjust discrimination. Racism and xenophobia were primary obstacles to the protection and promotion of human rights, and they often lay at the root of many conflicts. There could be no place for the mistreatment or prejudice of persons according to race, colour, descent or ethnic origin in this world. However, they still persisted in many forms, and the struggle to eradicate discrimination needed to be continued as a high priority with a steadfast commitment.
The people of the Republic of Korea understood well that as the globalized society came ever closer, it was all the more important to promote tolerance, respect and understanding among cultures and races. It was further recognized that society had much to benefit from the interchange of cultures and celebration of diversity. Any doctrine of racial discrimination had no justification in theory or practice. However, no country was perfect in the protection of human rights, and the Government of the Republic of Korea was prepared to listen to any views presented by the members of the Committee and to take them into serious consideration in mapping out future policies and measures to improve the implementation of the Convention.
The Government of the Republic of Korea committed itself to make the utmost efforts for the faithful implementation of the International Convention and would continue to take steps to further protect the rights of foreigners and minorities in that country.
Another member of the delegation, JI-AH PAIK, Director of the Human Rights and Social Affairs Division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, then said the delegation looked forward to a frank exchange of dialogue and opinions. The report mainly covered administrative, legislative and judicial measures taken since the last report had been submitted in 1998. A more solid foundation had been laid for the protection of human rights in the Republic of Korea. The Committee had expressed concern for foreign migrant workers and industrial trainees for many years, and the Government of Korea had taken significant steps to improve their situation, as it had also done for refugees. Basic human rights also applied to foreigners, and the only restrictions were on grounds of citizenship, such as the right to vote. Each and every comment of the Committee would be carefully examined with the aim of using it to improve the promotion and protection of human rights in Korea.
Discussion
CHENGYUAN TANG, Committee Expert who served as country rapporteur for the reports of the Republic of Korea, said the reports submitted spelled out what measures had been taken by the Republic of Korea since its last report. The Republic of Korea needed to do work to ensure that article 2 was fully respected in human rights law. He then recalled the recommendations made by the Committee following consideration of the previous report. In comparison with these recommendations and what had taken place in the Republic of Korea, it was noted that improvements still remained to be done in certain areas, although significant progress had also been made. On the legal level, particularly concerning sanctions for violations of human rights, there was a need to strengthen the provisions of domestic law in order to fulfill the provisions of the International Convention. He asked whether there had been incidents of racial discrimination in the Republic of Korea in the past, and if so how had these been dealt with.
The report seemed to indicate that there was no discrimination as such. However, there were sometimes aggressions, mainly verbal, against certain persons, and this needed to be ended, by whatever means necessary. More details were needed as to how the Republic of Korea would deal with this problem. Recommendations had been made regarding foreign migrant workers, whose numbers had risen steadily in the Republic of Korea, and it was pointed out that these should enjoy the same rights and treatment as Korean workers.
With regard to refugees, in addition to the International Convention on Refugees and the Protocol on Refugees, the country had amended the immigration law positively, with refugees given longer to submit their application for asylum. A request was made for more information on what happened to those who had their applications rejected.
The Government of the Republic of Korea clearly gave great importance to the recommendations of the Committee, and had implemented some of them, but work remained to be done, as foreign workers were still victims of discrimination under various forms. The issue of foreign prostitutes was a very complex issue, since many of those coming into the Republic of Korea had been forced into prostitution. Once in Korea, they were exploited, unpaid and forced to continue to work. These young women came from many countries, and their situation was very poor. What measures had been taken to protect these extremely vulnerable women, he asked. As for minorities, particularly children of mixed marriages, there was a need for further information. There had been great improvement in the situation of the Chinese minority in the country.
The Government of Korea attached importance to dialogue with the Committee, and had sent a large delegation, and this was excellent. The report confirmed that the problems raised by the Committee had been dealt with by legal measures, and work had been done to apply these laws. This was extremely encouraging, and was appreciated.
Other members of the Committee also raised questions. They asked, among other things, questions on such varied topics as the lack of information on acts of discrimination; whether the Human Rights Commission would help to resolve this issue and other issues related to the powers of that body; the increase of the number of migrants in an irregular situation who suffered from their precarious plight; information missing from the report, for example on the discrimination that made victims of migrant women; measures adopted by the Government to prevent a second 11 September; provisions of article 5 of the International Convention and its implementation in Korea, notably article 5.b. with regard to arbitrary detention; the granting of the right to vote to foreigners which would contribute towards eliminating discrimination; the industrial trainee system; racial prejudice against children from mixed marriages, particularly Amerasian children of Korean mothers; the need to ban racist organizations and groupings that incited racial discrimination; and whether the Republic of Korea was in fact becoming a multi-cultural population due to the process of globalization and the increase in migration.
The Committee also noted the wealth of information contained in the report.
Responding, JI-AH PAIK, Director of the Human Rights and Social Affairs Division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, offered the delegation’s sincere appreciation for the constructive thoughts, questions and suggestions offered by the Committee, which had already served to assist in the continuing reflection on how to increase the effectiveness of the Republic of Korea’s efforts to combat all forms of racial discrimination.
With regard to national legislation for the implementation of the Convention, a member of the delegation said the International Convention could be invoked as the same source of law as domestic laws, however, there had been no case yet where this had occurred. It could also be invoked when judging the constitutionality of domestic legislation.
As for migrant workers including industrial trainees, it was expected that with the introduction of the Employment Permit System, many problems that foreign workers had faced would be effectively solved. In the case of industrial trainees, only a portion of the Labour Standards Act, Minimum Wages Act, Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Industrial Safety Sanitation Act and National Health Insurance Act were applicable to trainees. In terms of remedy in the case of the violation of the rights of foreign workers, matters could be reported at local labour offices, and the remedy procedure was the same as that for domestic workers. The possibility of acceding to the International Convention on Migrant Workers and their families would be examined in due course.
The number of refugees accepted in the Republic of Korea was currently 12 people. The Government had actively adopted various measures to improve the system, and with these changes was trying to level with international standards on refugee issues. The Ministry of Justice had set the refugee issue as a priority this year. With regard to ethnic Chinese, permission had to be sought for naturalization, and previous nationality had to be renounced. If one parent of a child was a Korean national, however, the child acquired Korean nationality at birth.
The rights protected by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, excluding those that were premised on Korean citizenship, applied equally to foreigners. If these rights were violated, victims could file a complaint to a Korean court in relation thereof. There was no institutional discrimination against ethnic minorities and mixed ethnicity, however, racial prejudice and verbal abuse were considered to still exist. The Republic of Korea recognized that education was one of the most important methods for the elimination of racial discrimination; further, recent rapid internationalisation had created a greater understanding and tolerance for other cultures and races, thereby dissipating such prejudiced views in Korean society. Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Convention and human rights stipulated in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights were taught comprehensively in various subjects for the elementary and secondary school curricula.
With regard to trafficking in persons and domestic violence, this crime called for international cooperation, and the international community needed to cooperate closely in order to come up with concrete counter-measures to deal with such crimes. The Korean Government considered trafficking in persons as one of the most serious violations of human rights, and had taken various measures to intensify its efforts to address this heinous crime, including the establishment of an Inter-agency Committee to Prevent Trafficking in Persons in July 2001. Measures had also been taken to prevent the crime, as well as to protect its victims, and the Government had actively participated in international cooperation to prevent trafficking in persons.
Preliminary Remarks
CHENGYUANG TANG, Committee Rapporteur for the Republic of Korea, said his general impression was that the delegation had seriously prepared for the meeting and had offered excellent responses to the enquiries of the Committee. All of the questions raised had been answered, and there were no further questions or comments from the Committee, which proved their satisfactory nature. Much detailed information and clarification had been provided, and this was appreciated, for example concerning the rights of the ethnic Chinese, industrial trainees, and refugees.
With regard to article four, this needed to be incorporated into domestic legislation, since only then would the article be properly implemented, and it was hoped that in the next periodic report more information would be provided on this issue should any new developments occur. The delegation had had a very positive exchange of views with the Committee.
Concluding Remarks by the Delegation
JI-AH PAIK, Director at the Human Rights and Social Affairs Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, said in concluding remarks there was sincere appreciation for the Committee, since the two days debate had been useful and productive, and the comments would be a useful guidance for the Government of the Republic of Korea in its untiring efforts for the elimination of racial discrimination, since it was strongly committed to human rights.
Consideration of the Situation in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Under its review procedure, the Committee then began review of the situation in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. The Committee was in possession of the fifth periodic report of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (CERD/C/105.Add.5), submitted in June 1984, but not of the sixth to fifteenth periodic reports of that country, which had not been submitted.
NOURREDINE AMIR, the Group’s rapporteur for the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, said the issue was difficult since all information received with regard to the Hmong minority was very difficult to bear. The relations between the country and the Committee, following all the appeals launched for it to submit its report, had remained without a response, other than that the report would be submitted next year.
No report had been received for 18 years, and this was the only country with such a huge delay. Official reasons for this were of two types, first the difficulties faced by developing countries; and second, technical difficulties in drafting the report, although an offer of cooperation had been made by the Committee and by the Secretariat. No response had been received to this offer. No response had been received to articles 2 and 7 either.
The nature of the regime in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic could be determined through its Constitution, which was basically a communist one, although containing some elements for a free market, which were however limited. Laos was not a signatory to the twelve essential human rights conventions, although it had signed the International Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Laos had submitted information to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which had been made available to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, but this had not helped to clarify the situation, since it was often contradictory, since, for example, different reports respectively claimed 47 and 68 ethnic minorities. A certain amount of information concerning Laos gave information on the political structure of the country, but this was derived only from official data. The Committee had posed many questions, but the Laos Government had never answered these.
Laos appeared to have a will to be isolated, although surrounded by a number of important countries in a very sensitive region. Laos was among the least developed countries in Southeast Asia, but had taken no legislative, judicial or any other measure to implement the provisions of article two of the International Convention, nor indeed did it appear to have included the provisions of any other article in domestic law. The Constitution of Laos set forth the notion that the State was pursuing a policy of unity among all the population, but this did not explain the real existence of racial discrimination against the Hmong minority which required promotion and protection.
The Hmong lived in the northern part of Laos, which was near the Southern part of China, where Hmong also lived. The Laotian Hmong represented 10 per cent of the country’s population. Many were today refugees, and many more were currently living in the jungle of Laos, with no access to basic services, unprotected in any way, and barely surviving a horrific situation. They were subjected to social discrimination, as well as to a systematic policy of displacement, which had the net result of increasing discrimination against them. There was an urgent need for them to be protected by the United Nations and the international community and to have their rights guaranteed. There also appeared to be clear evidence of religious discrimination against all forms of religion, even though religious freedom was guaranteed by the Constitution.
Education figures also displayed evidence of discrimination, with apparently the majority of the ethnic minorities never having attended school. The Lao Government had been trying to shape a communist population in rural areas, with these people supposed to live purely from agriculture, with no need for academic learning. The Government had remained quiet in the face of demands from minorities to have their own identity. Laotians in general had called for a multi-party political system and for elections for a new National Assembly, but this had not taken place.
None of the conclusions or recommendations of the Committee had been respected by the Government of Laos to date. Mr. Amir concluded that the Communist party had taken power in Laos in 1975. It had cut off all contacts with the Committee since 1984, and had arrested those whose job was to report on the situation in the country. When the Committee had met without representatives of Laos, it had asked the Government to submit a report. The Government had recently declared it would submit a report in 2004, but it had broken its promises before. There was therefore an exceptional situation, and the a Special Rapporteur on racial discrimination should visit the country, not only for the Committee but also for all the human rights committees, and he would, by his presence and by his report, improve the situation, in particular for refugees. This was an urgent matter, and should be given urgent consideration.
The Lao Government should be brought to understand that it was necessary to have a report on this issue, and that the report of 2004 should provide responses to the points raised by the Committee that should have already been dealt with. A document should be drafted on the emergency situation that was currently in Laos.
MARIO JORGE YUTZIS, as acting Chairman replacing Ion Diaconu, suggested that a procedural discussion be held in order to determine the form of this document, and that it should include suggestions for the Government of Laos
The Committee then discussed various issues related to Laos, including the lack of information provided by Laos and the lack of cooperation of its Government; the evidence provided by non-governmental organizations on arbitrary detentions, lack of impartiality by the judiciary, restrictions on the freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of movement and freedom of religion; the issue of ethnic discrimination against the hill tribes who were the victims of many forms of discrimination, including attacks on their cultural identity; the ill-treatment of refugees returned to Laos; whether the Committee should move on to the rapid response procedure and tell the Government that the report must be submitted in 2004 by a delegation; the dire peril of the Hmong people; the immediate visit of the Special Rapporteur to Laos; and false accusations made against the foreign press, who were then subject to arbitrary detention.
The Committee suggested, among other things, that the emergency procedure be begun as a matter of urgency, and that the visit of the Special Rapporteur be expedited as far as possible, in order to save as many lives as possible, and that pressure be put on the Laos Government to accept his visit and render him every facility said Experts. The Government of Laos needed to respect its obligations, and ought to be encouraged to do so. It appeared to be attempting to live up to its commitments, but this might be just a diversionary tactic, the Committee members said.
The situation was alarming, other Experts said, and there was no need to waste more time proving this; the Committee needed to be more pro-active and draw the attention of the General Assembly and of the Security Council, as well as other organs including UNICEF and WHO to the issue, asking for their help to provide assistance to Laos as a matter of urgency. The entire international community needed to react by bringing as much pressure to bear on the Government to fulfill its obligations.
Concluding, the Committee agreed that there was a need to react urgently and to do its utmost to find a solution to the issue.
* *** *
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: