SUBCOMMISSION ADOPTS CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENTS ON SITUATIONS IN INDONESIA AND MEXICO

MORNING


HR/SC/99/28
25 August 1999





Resolution on State Obligations Under Human Rights Treaties Passed by Secret Ballot; Consensus Measures Approved on Affirmative Action, World Conference against Racism

The Subcommission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights adopted Chairman’s statements this morning approving progress made by the Governments of Indonesia and Mexico in the field of human rights but expressing concern about persistent allegations of continuing violations in those countries.

Subcommission Experts also adopted, by a secret ballot of 17 in favour and 7 opposed, with 1 Expert abstaining, a resolution on continuing obligations under international human-rights treaties, which appealed strongly to all States that had not yet done so to become parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as other international and regional human-rights treaties.

More controversially, the measure also called on specific to reconsider recent withdrawals from international human-rights treaties or certain optional protocols of human-rights treaties. The mention of specific countries and the issue of the right or ability of States’ parties to withdraw from such treaties were the cause of extensive debate this morning and at a Subcommission meeting Tuesday evening.

A representative of Peru contended the resolution set an “extremely dangerous precedent”: that the Subcommission was equating the legitimate act of a State -- withdrawal from international treaties -- with human-rights violations, and so was threatening a tradition of international dialogue on human-rights matters

By consensus, the Subcommission also approved this morning resolutions calling for its Special Rapporteur on affirmative action to seek out and review national practices on the subject; and offering a number of suggestions for the upcoming World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.

The Chairman’s statement on Indonesia said the Subcommission was encouraged by significant improvements in the protection of human rights in the country, including the lifting of restrictions on political parties and the holding in 1999 of the first free elections in 45 years in the context of a process of democratization, including liberalization of the press and an active civil society. But the Subcommission said it remained concerned at persistent reports of human-rights violations in Indonesia, including extrajudicial killings and ill-treatment, as well as continued serious violence and abuses in such regions of the country as Aceh and Ambon.

The Chairman’s statement on Mexico welcomed recent positive changes, including ratification by the Government of Mexico of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families on 12 November 1998, ratification of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women on 3 December 1998, and particularly the introduction of a National Programme for the Defence and Promotion of Human Rights on 21 December 1998. But the Subcommission also expressed continuing concern over the human-rights situation in Mexico, and noted persistent allegations of torture, extrajudicial executions, and disappearances, as well as violations perpetrated against indigenous communities.

Speaking this morning were Subcommission Experts Jose Bengoa, Halima Embarek Warzazi, Yeung Kam Yeung Sik Yuen, Erica-Irene A. Daes, Hector Fix-Zamudio, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Louis Joinet, Asbjorn Eide, El-Hadji Guisse, Miguel Alfonso Martinez, Soli Jehangir Sorabjee, Fisseha Yimir, Fan Guoxiang, and Francoise Jane Hampson.

Also speaking were representatives of Peru, Indonesia, and Mexico.

The Subcommission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue action on draft resolutions and decisions.

Action on resolutions and decisions

In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/L.17) on continuing obligations under international human rights treaties, adopted by a secret ballot of 17 in favour and 7 opposed, with 1 Expert abstaining, the Subcommission appealed strongly to all States that had not yet done so to become parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as other international and regional human rights treaties; encouraged the full participation of all Member States in the United Nations human rights system, as well as in the regional human rights systems in their respective regions; invited all States and all relevant United Nations human rights mechanisms and procedures to pay continued attention to the importance of mutual cooperation, understanding and dialogue in ensuring the promotion and protection of human rights; encouraged the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to continue to assume its international human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as it had done in announcing that it would soon present its second periodic report to the Human Rights Committee; urged the Government of Jamaica to re-accede to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; urged the Governments of Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago to accept the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol with regard to all claims of violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and looked forward to the decision of the Human Rights Committee, which would consider whether the reservations made by Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago were consistent with their broader treaty obligations; urged the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to resume its obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights; urged the Government of Peru to continue to accept the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; requested the Secretary-General to submit a report on the status of withdrawals and reservations with regard to international human rights treaties to the Commission on Human Rights and the Subcommission; and decided to recommend that the Commission on Human Rights consider the implications of withdrawal from, or limitation of the scope of, international treaty obligations at its next session under agenda item 17 of the provisional agenda on the promotion and protection of human rights; and decided to continue consideration of this question at its 52nd session under the same agenda item.

Through a secret ballot it was decided to keep preambular paragraphs 11-13 and operative paragraphs 4-6 of the resolution.

Through a secret ballot it was decided to keep preambular paragraph 14 and operative paragraph 7 of the resolution.

Through a secret ballot it was decided to keep preambular paragraph 15 and operative paragraph 8 of the resolution.

JOSE BENGOA, Subcommission Expert, said the question of countries’ participation in human-rights treaties had been discussed yesterday. It appeared that the international system for encouraging State participation in human-rights treaties had to be strengthened.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Subcommission Expert, said adoption of this resolution would amount to criticism of States that withdrew from treaties. Several human-rights conventions stipulated that any party could withdraw by notification. This resolution did not seem to have been thought through.

YEUNG KAM YEUNG SIK YUEN, Subcommission Expert, said he had listened to the objections raised by other Experts. The role of Expert was confined within the parameters of the mandate, which was to promote and protect human rights. Not all opinions expressed could be correct. The integrity and good faith of Experts should not be easily attacked. The essential point to be promoted was that there was no protection when States parties to treaties decided to withdraw from the treaties or from the jurisdictions of previously agreed-upon bodies. State sovereignty was not being attacked by this draft resolution. But such a measure required wide consensus to be effective, and the fruit was not yet ripe. Still, he supported the draft resolution.

ERICA-IRENE A. DAES, Subcommission Expert, said the draft resolution said it was the duty and the responsibility of everyone to strive for the promotion and protection of human rights. It was within this framework that the measure was drafted. Its main focus was the protection and promotion of human rights. As for the number of names that were included, she had no objection if colleagues wanted to delete the names or amend the paragraphs.

HECTOR FIX-ZAMUDIO, Subcommission Expert, said the discussion was taking a positive turn; now the discussion was about the promotion of human rights. The Subcommission had encouraged States to ratify various human-rights instruments and expressed its satisfaction when they had done so. When States withdrew from Conventions, this was not a criticism. The discussion should be if withdrawal from a Convention was positive or not. The Subcommission would be encouraging States and inviting them to rethink if they withdrew; this resolution would in no way impinge on their sovereignty.

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Subcommission Expert, said the resolution did not take a position on the legality of withdrawal from a treaty. This was a problem to be dealt with by treaty bodies. Its main concern was the promotion of human rights, and this was therefore a very healthy resolution. There was no intention to usurp the legitimate authority of any State. Some States had not ratified these treaties. The modest approach of the resolution only indicated the approach to human rights taken by some States. It was not good practice for a State to withdraw from a mechanism if it had no human-rights violations on its soil. No State had withdrawn from a mechanism without being criticized by that mechanism, and it was not a good tendency when States withdrew after they had been criticized.

LOUIS JOINET, Subcommission Expert, said there was no precedent for a State to withdraw from a convention in the sphere of human rights. This kind of thing began in 1997. Nowhere in the resolution did it say that the Subcommission contested the right of States to withdraw. These countries were not being condemned, they were being encouraged.

ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission Expert, said the Subcommission's job was to promote and protect human rights. The resolution fell fully within the mandate of the Subcommission. It should continue to encourage States to ratify treaties. But if, when a country was tested or criticized under a convention, that country withdrew, then it was pointless for a State to sign up in the first place. This was an even-handed resolution which must be addressed quickly. He hoped the Subcommission would not remove the names of States named in the resolution.

EL-HADJI GUISSE, Subcommission Expert, said that the Subcommission was in the process of sliding, which was not a favourable process. There was a need to be clear and objective, as said by Mr. Eide. The discussion should be serious. He could not support this resolution. Ms. Hampson had submitted a working paper on reservations to human-rights treaties, and had come up with recommendations and resolutions on the topic. However, there also was a resolution, as though the working document already was sufficient to justify such a measure. Ms. Hampson should finish her study and then come up with a resolution. At the beginning of her work it was not possible for her to come up with an appropriate resolution. The resolution was premature.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Subcommission Expert, said there were 14 co-sponsors to this draft resolution, and that meant there was enough support to adopt it. From this debate, the Subcommission should learn several lessons. First, the objective of the text was to see how this body could bring about a better way to promote and protect human rights. There was a minority of this group that thought that this text was unacceptable. Perhaps if they had had the opportunity to discuss the text in its preliminary phase, some of their concerns could have been taken care of.

SOLI JEHANGIR SORABJEE, Subcommission Expert, said the resolution did not take a stand on States’ actions, nor did it take a stand on States' right of withdrawal. Concerning some Experts’ reservations about the preamble, a preamble was not the operative part of a resolution. However, he still had a lingering doubt that with this draft resolution, the Subcommission was taking on more that it could handle.

FISSEHA YIMER, Subcommission Expert, said the debate had proved that the resolution was controversial. The question of the legality of withdrawal from treaties by States parties had been resolved in the positive. The States named were not being cornered, the co-sponsors said. The attempt was merely to protect and promote human rights, the co-sponsors said, but this was fallacious, since the resolution was denying States their right to withdraw from treaties. The States should not be named, since this did not promote human rights.

FAN GUOXIANG, Subcommission Expert, said whether it was the co-sponsors or not the co-sponsors, everybody had a point of view, and everybody was working on the promotion and protection of human rights. That was not where the differences lay. The differences were whether this text actually helped promote human rights. Since yesterday, Mr. Yimer had said that States had the right to withdraw from a treaty or a convention. There were no great divergences on that point. The difference was in a few of the following points -- following withdrawal from a treaty, were human rights violated? Did a mass violation of human rights follow? The point was whether the action of withdrawal would ultimately produce violations of human rights. It could not be presumed that any country that had withdrawn had actually violated human rights.

In 1995, there was a similar draft resolution. It was about those countries not cooperating with Special Rapporteurs -- not responding to them in a timely way or inviting them to visit their countries. That resolution was not adopted. There was no doubt that everyone had the same aim -- the promotion of human rights. Did a withdrawal mean violations of human rights, and was naming names in the measure useful, or a subjective exercise?

This text in its operative parts was very balanced. But all of that should be understood in light of paragraph 8 of the preamble, where it said the Subcommission was concerned that some States chose to openly defy, disregard, or otherwise ignore recommendations made to them. Everything that followed had to be seen in the context of what was said there. Apart from the individual cases and some small amendments, this resolution was almost supportable.

The result of the vote was known in advance -- there were at least 14 in favour. But think about the future. One option was the elimination of the country names from the text. States that chose to withdraw from international treaties would do so whether their names were put in the resolution or not.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Subcommission Expert, said that it was not suggested that withdrawal from a treaty mechanism was in itself evidence of a gross violation of human rights. The concern was that the withdrawals occurred within the context of human-rights violations noted by relevant human-rights treaty bodies.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Subcommission Expert, said the Subcommission was attacking a right and making it into a violation of human rights. This was being justified erroneously. A vote on the topic should be avoided, and the subject should be left to mature.

JORGE VOTO-BERNALES (Peru) said that draft resolution L.17 presented an extremely dangerous precedent, as the Subcommission was equating a legitimate act of the State with human-rights violations. Withdrawal from the jurisdiction in question was not forbidden; Peru had taken its decision out of a desire to maintain peace and security in the country. The draft resolution showed selectivity. There were other important reasons why this issue should be seen in a regional context. Peru strived to respect human rights. The country had adhered to several treaties. Now a group of experts at the Subcommission, through a dubious debate, was a threatening a tradition of international dialogue on human-rights matters. Peru hoped the resolution would be rejected.


Subcommission debate moved on to draft resolution E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/L.18. The panel subsequently decided to postpone action on the draft in order to allow Experts time to consider proposals to split the draft resolution into two draft resolutions.

ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission Expert, said this measure dealt with two different situations -- long-term refugees in Nepal and displaced persons in Turkey. He proposed that the draft be divided, so there would be two different draft resolutions. This would give members the chance to vote on the two different situations.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Subcommission Expert, said the situation of refugees and internally displaced persons was not limited to Bhutan and Turkey, and it was not fair to limit the draft resolution to these countries. Mr. Joinet should have been consulted on the issue, since he was the one who had launched the procedure. As regarded Turkey, it was an inappropriate time to submit this measure. She suggested the deletions of parts of the text.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Subcommission Expert, said the proposed separation of the resolution, L.18, into two parts, when up until now it had been viewed as a single text, was rather difficult. These were major changes and it was important to have the time to study them. He asked if the draft resolution could be retained in its current form and a vote taken on various substantive matters within the resolution.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Subcommission Expert, said the original draft resolution was available in the working languages of the UN, and there were no changes of substance if the resolution was split into two. The presentation of two texts was to make it easier for colleagues to see the split. This split made sure that the texts became country resolutions and not thematic resolutions. That would make it easier for members of the Subcommission in their discussions.

FAN GUOXIANG, Subcommission Expert, said he was not in favour of name-calling in draft resolutions. Ms. Warzazi's proposal was a good proposal, including her deletions. It would provide a form and a content that would be more acceptable.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Subcommission Expert, said she was opposed to the resolution.

In a Chairman's statement, the Subcommission said it was encouraged by the significant improvements taking place in Indonesia towards protection of human rights. It had taken note of the lifting of restrictions on political parties and the holding in 1999 of the first free elections in 45 years in the context of a process of democratization, including liberalization of the press and an active civil society.

The Subcommission remained concerned, however, at persistent reports of human-rights violations, including extrajudicial killings and ill-treatment, as well as continued serious violence and abuses, for example in Aceh and Ambon. The Government had taken various action to deal with some of these concerns, for example, by promoting dialogue and reconciliation in various regions, including Irian Jaya, by releasing a substantial number of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience from different parts of the country; and by bringing to justice or dismissing some police officers and soldiers. In its statement to the Subcommission, the Government also had committed itself to continuing to bring to justice those who violated human rights, humanitarian law, and criminal law so as to combat impunity.

The Subcommission noted that in April 1999, the Government announced at the 55th session of the Commission on Human Rights that the Government had decided to ratify both International Human Rights Covenants during the year 2000. The Subcommission hoped that the Government would then begin to consider ratification of the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.


The Subcommission noted with satisfaction that the Government of Indonesia had already received visits from the thematic mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights on prevention of torture (1991), extra-judicial executions (1995), violence against women (1998), and arbitrary detention (1999). The Subcommission was pleased by continuing efforts to implement the recommendations of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women. It further encouraged the Government of Indonesia to continue its cooperation with the thematic mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights, for example by inviting for follow-up visits the other two special rapporteurs. It welcomed discussions aimed towards inviting the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers to visit, in the context of a planned reform of the judicial system.

ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission Expert, said that as a result of a long and fruitful discussion with the representative of Indonesia, a Chairman's Statement had been agreed upon as preferable to a resolution.

LOUIS JOINET, Subcommission Expert, said he was more in favour of a Chairperson's Statement than a resolution. There was just one passage, on the separation of the police from the army, which was actually a process under way, that concerned him. He would vote for the adoption of a Chairperson's statement despite being opposed to the draft resolution.

N. HASSAN WIRAJUDA (Indonesia) said the concern of the members of the Subcommission over human-rights violations all over the world was also the concern of Indonesia. The Indonesian Government had never claimed to be perfect. However, it wished to stress the importance of effective ways and means to redress human-rights violations. The Government had made enormous progress in the promotion and protection of human rights in a relatively short period of time. It now had a better and more conducive environment for the promotion and protection of human rights than ever before. The Chairperson's statement was taken note of, and the Indonesian delegation would continue to pursue a constructive dialogue and to cooperate with the Subcommission.


In a Chairman's statement, the Subcommission welcomed positive changes that had taken place in Mexico since last year. These developments had included the ratification by the Government of Mexico of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families on 12 November 1998, as well as the ratification of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women on 3 December 1998. The Subcommission was also particularly pleased that the Government of Mexico had introduced a National Programme for the Defence and Promotion of Human Rights on 21 December last year. These initiatives by the Government of Mexico could help ensure a situation in which human rights were increasingly respected and observed. The Subcommission also noted that on 6 June 1999, the Federal Congress of Mexico approved Constitutional reform providing for the complete autonomy of the National Commission of Human Rights.

The Subcommission, however, wished to express its continuing concern over the human-rights situation in Mexico, and noted persistent allegations of torture, extrajudicial executions, and disappearances, as well as violations perpetrated against indigenous communities. The Subcommission also noted the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee from 27 July 1999 which expressed concern over the increase in actions by the armed forces within society, particularly in the states of Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca. The Subcommission urgently requested the Government of Mexico to take further steps to implement the National Programme for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights, as well as to investigate all human-rights violations committed by both State and non-State forces, and to take effective and concrete steps to bring the perpetrators to justice in accordance with international human-rights standards.

The Subcommission also took note of the invitation to visit addressed to the Chairperson of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, Erica-Irene A. Daes, by the Institute National Indigenista. The Subcommission understood that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had been contacted regarding the financial implications of such a visit.

ERICA-IRENE A. DAES, Subcommission Expert, said, concerning the situation in Mexico, that the spirit of dialogue had prevailed. There had been constructive consultations with members of the Subcommission, the Government of Mexico and some representatives of indigenous groups, including in Chiapas. She shared the concerns of indigenous groups in Mexico. The problems there could be more effectively resolved through peaceful negotiations. The San Andres agreement should be respected and supplemented.

After consideration of the draft Chairman's statement, the ambassador of Mexico was available to speak before consideration of adoption of the draft statement.

ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico), said the delegation took note of the Chairperson's statement welcoming the positive developments which had taken place in Mexico since last year, and in which the Subcommission found that the initiatives taken by the Government of Mexico could help to ensure a situation in which rights were increasingly respected and observed. It shared the Subcommission's concerns over persistent allegations of human-rights violations and assured the Experts that it would endeavour to investigate all complaints and to punish those responsible for human-rights violations. There was firm political will to resolve the conflict in Chiapas through peace negotiations. There were occasions and places in which the civil security forces were not sufficient to maintain order, protect citizens and dissuade violence, rendering the presence of armed forces necessary to temporarily assist civil authorities.

There was full Mexican cooperation with international and regional human-rights mechanisms, and this policy would continue with regard to the international community and the Subcommission. The members of the Subcommission were thanked for the constructive dialogue that had been maintained and the appropriate manner with which the concerns raised here had been dealt with.

LOUIS JOINET, Subcommission Expert, said impunity for violations was why he had reservations about a Chairman's statement concerning Mexico. The fundamental reason for impunity in any country was the operation of the justice system; it was the behaviour of judges that made it possible to eradicate impunity. Practical acts were better than resolutions.

JOSE BENGOA, Subcommission Expert, said there had been lengthy debate about Mexico this year. It was important to come up with a declaration such as this. Negotiations were well-conducted to the extent that they highlighted a number of concrete elements. In the statement, reference should have been made to follow-up. Next year, the Subcommission would have to look at what had happened and what progress had been made.

ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission Expert, reminded the Experts that three Chairperson's statements had been adopted during the session, and this was a very positive sign, since it indicated consensus and agreement between all. He felt there was real concern over and interest in the work done by the Subcommission on the part of the Governments concerned.

In a measure (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/L.2) on the concept and practice of affirmative action, adopted by consensus, the Subcommission decided to renew its authorization to the Special Rapporteur on the concept and practice of affirmative action to request the United Nations Secretary-General to send a questionnaire to Governments, international organizations and non-governmental organizations, inviting them to provide all relevant national documentation on the subject of affirmative action; and decided to request the High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide the Special Rapporteur with all the assistance necessary for the preparation of his study.

FAN GUOXIANG, Subcommission Expert, said that affirmative action could be understood and practiced differently in different parts of the world. The treatment given to disadvantaged groups might vary, but the spirit should be the same. The study should be carried out, but different situations should be taken into account.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/L.3) on the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, adopted by consensus, the Subcommission declared that all forms of racism and racial discrimination, whether in institutionalized form or resulting from doctrines and practices of racial superiority or exclusivity, were among the most serious violations of human rights in the contemporary world and must be combatted by all lawful means; considered that substantial voluntary contributions to the Trust Fund for the Programme of Action for the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination were indispensable to the implementation of the Programme of Action for the Third Decade; regretted the continued lack of interest, support and financial resources for the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination and the Programme of Action for the Third Decade, and called upon all Governments, United Nations bodies, specialized agencies and interested non-governmental organizations, to contribute fully to the implementation of the Programme of Action; recommended that the studies undertaken by the Subcommission in response to suggestions from the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination be used in the preparatory process and at the World Conference itself; decided to carry out further studies without delay, within the framework of the objectives laid down in the General Assembly resolution 52-111, and to transmit recommendations for studies to the Commission on Human Rights at its 55th session and, through the Commission, to the Preparatory Committee; called upon the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to take the necessary steps to advance the regional preparatory processes; recommended to the Preparatory Committee that the World Conference devote considerable attention to the overall themes of equality and diversity in an effort to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; also recommended that the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance play an integral role in all processes regarding the World Conference; suggested that the World Conference focus on situations of racism and ethnic conflict and other patterns of discrimination that were based on race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin or gender, as well as the topics of the current realities in the aftermath of slavery and colonialism, including the legal implications of the slave trade and the conditions of persons of African descent in the Americas; the impact of economic globalization on racial equality, including globalization in the context of the increase in incidents of racism, and the economic basis of racism; the treatment of migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, other non-citizens and displaced persons, as well as the related phenomenon of xenophobia; the prevention of racial discrimination, including early warning and urgent procedures, as well as the accountability of non-State actors; the prevention of racial discrimination through education and labour regulation; remedies, redress mechanisms and reparations for racial discrimination, including affirmative action, and compensation for victims and descendants of victims or racism; international mechanisms for the implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and their progressive development, as well as reservations to the Convention; combatting hate speech and promoting tolerance in the digital age; the implications of multiple identities (race, colour, descent, minority, national or ethnic origin, gender), and means to be applied to protect the rights of indigenous peoples; recommended that the World Conference prepare a declaration and a programme of action to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance; also recommended that the World Conference define a global and system-wide strategy to combat racism and racial discrimination which could lead to concrete results for the populations affected; and decided to discuss the World Conference further at its 52nd session.