Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination considers report of Panama

2 March 2010

The Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the combined fifteenth to twentieth periodic reports of Panama on how that country implements the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Jorge Ricardo Rabrega, Deputy Minister of Government and Justice of Panama, presenting the report, said that, as a multi-linguistic, multi-ethnic and cosmopolitan State, Panama rejected discrimination. The Government continued designing and implementing measures aimed at tackling discrimination, based on whatever ground. It was always more efficient to attempt to control discriminatory practices right from the beginning rather to wait that they became more deeply entrenched. Panama therefore particularly recognized the importance of education, which it promoted both at the institutional and the family level, because human rights education was key in changing attitudes and behaviours that discriminated on the ground of race, as well as in promoting tolerance and respect for diversity.

Besides designing and implementing various programmes aimed at protecting and promoting the rights of the child, women, and other groups, Panama had focused its attention on the rights of African descendants. Among its efforts in that regard was a 2005 decree that established a Special Commission which worked on the full integration of African descendants into Panamanian society, as well as a 2007 decree creating the National Council of African Descendants which had been implementing an action plan to better ensure the equal participation of that group in decision-making, Mr. Rabrega said.

In preliminary concluding observations, Jose Francisco Cali Tzay, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Panama, said the plight of African descendants and that of indigenous peoples in Panama were of particular importance to the Committee. The Government needed to implement the discussed measures in that regard. It was lamentable that 84 per cent of the Panamanian indigenous community lived in conditions of extreme poverty, and that it was dangerous to be part of that community. More information would also have been appreciated with regard to the Government’s position on Somali refugees, who allegedly had not been given the opportunity to have their cases reviewed; on illegal Colombian refugees; and on the percentage of indigenous people that were allowed to participate at Panama’s roundtable dialogue.

Over the course of the two meetings with the delegation, Committee Members raised a number of concerns, including that there was no prohibition of racial propaganda and racial violence in Panama’s domestic legislation; that action was needed to ensure the full integration of African descendants into Panamanian society; and that the status of the five indigenous territorial districts was unclear. A particular concern was the plight of the indigenous communities affected by the construction of an electric plant on their territory, including reports that the company had obstructed indigenous people’s access to that area. In that connection, Experts asked what measures had been taken to guarantee that ethnic and indigenous groups fully enjoyed their rights, in particular their rights to land, consultation in decision-making and entitlement to compensation?

The delegation of Panama also included representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Mission of Panama to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The next public meeting of the Committee will be on Friday, 12 March, when it will make public its concluding observations on reports considered over the past two weeks before closing the work of its seventy-sixth session.

Report of Panama

In its fifteenth to twentieth periodic reports, submitted in one document (CERD/C/PAN/20), Panama notes that, despite decades of efforts to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, racial discrimination continues to poison human relations and institutions in various ways in all parts of the world. By endorsing the basic principles of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in 2001 in Durban, Panama recognizes that education is one of the most effective means of countering racial discrimination. In fact, the Government views education as “a determining factor in the promotion, dissemination and protection of the democratic values of justice and equity, which are essential to prevent and combat the spread of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”. Panama has recently begun to focus its attention, as a matter of priority, on the situation of ethnic minorities, indigenous people, persons with disabilities, marginalized groups and the most vulnerable sectors of society. These efforts place particular emphasis on education as a process whereby citizens and Panamanian society in general can achieve their full potential. From this standpoint, Panama had made progress in eliminating illiteracy, expanding educational opportunities and increasing the participation of women in all areas, including in the field of education.

The national authorities have also established clear rules to eliminate hidden racial discrimination. One example of such hidden racial discrimination was the complaint made by the Federation of Panamanian Black Organizations that highlighted that some private secondary schools reserved the right of admission on grounds of colour or had rules banning Afro-descendant girls from wearing their traditional hairstyles. While similar situations used to be found in bars, restaurants and discotheques, such attitudes have been rejected by public opinion. Discrimination also takes the form of restrictions on access to the labour market, but the bill on measures to promote equal access to employment and to eliminate discriminatory practices has had a real impact in that regard. This was highlighted by the adoption of the 2005 act that prohibited labour discrimination and instituted preventive measures. Panama also promotes the participation of all population groups in the design of public policies, and an executive order was adopted in 2005 to establish a special committee to develop a Government policy on the full inclusion of ethnic black Panamanians.

Introduction of the Report

JORGE RICARDO RABREGA, Vice-Minister of Government and Justice of Panama, introducing the report, said that the Government of Panama considered this session an extraordinary opportunity to follow-up and analyse, in an objective manner, its human rights situation and assess the degree of accomplishment with regard to established human rights norms. The Government paid particular importance to the development of its report and the presence of today’s high-level delegation reflected its wish to increase Panama’s active role in multinational bodies.

As a multi-linguistic, multi-ethnic and cosmopolitan State, Panama rejected discrimination. The Government continued designing and implementing measures aimed at tackling discrimination, based on whatever grounds. It was always more efficient to attempt to control discriminatory practices right from the beginning rather to wait that they became more deeply entrenched. It was for that reason that Panama adhered to the provisions of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in 2001 in Durban. Panama particularly recognized the importance of education, which it promoted both at the institutional and the family level because human rights education was key in changing attitudes and behaviours that discriminated on the ground of race, as well as in promoting tolerance and respect for diversity.

Panama’s current Government had implemented policies aimed at guaranteeing the full range of human rights to all people under its jurisdiction, citizens as well as foreigners, disabled people, marginalized groups and other vulnerable sectors of society, Mr. Rabrega said. To that end, the new Government had initiated a series of projects to provide equal educational opportunities, expand the participation of women in all fields, as well as to promote and protect the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by everyone.

Mr. Rabrega noted that Panama’s willingness to protect the right to non-discrimination was clear even before its accession to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1967. An example of that was that Panama’s Constitution had been amended in 1956 in order to take into account the issue of non-discrimination. In further attempts to tackle that challenge, the Supreme Court of Justice had presented to the National Assembly in 2009 with a draft aimed at strengthening the Judicial Code regarding non-discrimination.

Panama’s new Penal Code provided for prison sentences of up to 30 years for persons engaging in actions that targeted specific groups of people due to their nationality, race, ethnicity, religious or political belief; it also sanctioned discrimination against sexual integrity. For its part, the Labour Code provided measures to tackle discrimination in the labour sector.

Besides designing and implementing various programmes aimed at protecting and promoting the rights of the child, women, and other groups, Panama had focused its attention on the rights of African descendants. Among its efforts in that regard was a 2005 decree that established a Special Commission which worked on the full integration of African descendants into Panamanian society, as well as a 2007 decree creating the National Council of African Descendants which had been implementing an action plan to better ensure the equal participation of that group in decision-making, Mr. Rabrega said.

Questions by Committee Experts

JOSE FRANCISCO CALI TZAY, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Panama, said that it was necessary to maintain an interactive dialogue in order to combat racial discrimination in Panama. The status of the five indigenous territorial districts remained unclear since the beginning of the Committee’s dialogue with Panama. That was also the case regarding the difference between the terms “ethnic groups” and “indigenous groups”.

Mr. Cali Tzay also requested further information on the exact role of article 35 of Panama’s Constitution, as well as on the measures taken by Panama to guarantee ethnic and indigenous groups that they fully enjoyed their rights. What should be understood by “respect for the culture of indigenous people”, as referred to by Panama, and what was the exact meaning of “pro-indigenous programmes”, he asked?

Additional information was also required on how Panama complied with the Convention’s requirement that States protect the right of indigenous people over their land and that - if dispossessed - they indigenous people should be compensated. That was of particular relevance as Panama had always been a melting pot of migrants and indigenous people.

Furthermore, the sentence “racial discrimination was not a problem in Panama”, as contained in Panama’s report, further needed clarification as such statements often were often attempts to obscure the reality.

Mr. Cali Tzay requested more information on how the Government ensured that the situation of indigenous people would be improved in a sustainable manner, and what was being done so that representatives of those communities could meet with United Nations agencies and other organizations so as to contribute to that end?

Furthermore, there needed to take action to ensure the full integration of people of African descendance into Panamanian society. The information provided in the report was insufficient, and the Committee needed to know whether the Government worked with African peoples themselves in order understand their needs and to advance their causes. The Expert also asked what should be understood by “large black ethnic group”, as referred to in Panama’s report.

Mr. Cali Tzay also asked what programmes the Government had in place to tackle poverty and social exclusion; whether any of the bilingual education programmes had been done away with, and if so, why; and what was the substance of the mentioned agreement reached with the communities of Bocas del Toro.

On indigenous issues, other Committee Members asked what the Government’s vision was regarding the equality of opportunities, whether it saw a need for special measures in that regard and whether a debate had been held on that? More information was also required on the implementation of article 5 of the Convention, and particularly how the rights of the indigenous peoples in the five indigenous territorial districts were ensured, particularly those relating to their right to land, their right to be consulted in decision-making, as well as their right to indemnity when becoming victims of activities that affected their rights. Could the delegation also clarify what rights indigenous people had outside of those territories, an Expert asked, also noting that the terms “territorial autonomy of indigenous people” remained unclear. Furthermore, were all indigenous peoples recognized as such, and what were the criteria for determining if a people or a person were indigenous?

Experts also requested clarification on what exactly the basic outcomes of education policies for rural communities were and what the indigenous primary and secondary educational curriculum consisted of, as well as why had Panama not acceded to the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.

Among other questions and comments, Experts requested further information on how racism and racial discrimination were perceived in public life in Panama; what effects, if any, advertising campaigns on issues pertaining to racial discrimination had had; concern that there was no prohibition of racial propaganda and racial violence in Panama’s domestic legislation; and a request for more detailed information on the composition of the Panamanian population.

Response by the Delegation

In response to these and other questions, the delegation said that the “melting pot” approach and its related multiracial aspects might be more difficult to deal with in Panama than in other countries because Panama had several ethnic groups that had kept their original roots. Nevertheless, other subpopulations had intermingled and married to native Panamanians, as was the case for many members of the large Chinese population.

The indigenous and pro-indigenous policy had led to significant advances in Panama. Indigenous people needed to be integrated into public life, and that task was in fact incumbent on the Government. There was also a discussion among Panama’s indigenous people as to who was authorized to define indigenous policies. In 1992, a consensus had been reached that pro-indigenous policies should be understood as indigenous people’s expressions of how policy should be carried out. On that basis, representatives of indigenous communities had stopped being objects and now took on the role of subjects. On issues relating to indigenous people, there also was also a close cooperation between various Government departments, directorates, as well as autonomous and semi-autonomous organs.

The delegation said that the Government recognized that indigenous people had previously simplistically been described as persons living in a geographical area that had been designated an indigenous territory. That simplified definition had been made more sophisticated for more recent censuses in order to take into account other characteristics, including language and ethnic origin. That new definition enabled the quantification of indigenous people in and outside of the five indigenous territorial districts more appropriately. The next population census, taking place in 2010, would also involve indigenous peoples themselves in the process of data collection, and publicity campaigns had been conducted in indigenous languages in order to call on those communities to provide the information required by the national census.

On ancestral lands, the delegation said that indigenous people were entitled to the lands, territories and resources that they had traditionally possessed, and – if dispossessed of the lands that they had occupied in the past - they were entitled to various other means, including fair and equitable indemnities. Panama had taken several steps in that regard already before endorsing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which highlighted the high importance Panama attached to the subject. Over 16,000 square kilometres – or over 22 per cent of the national territory – had been designated for use by indigenous people and, in a few years, a total of 30 per cent of the national territory would be allocated to the use and practice of indigenous agricultural activities.

As for educational curricula and bilingual education, there had been significant labour market migrations that negatively influenced the school attendance of indigenous children and youth. In order to remedy that situation, Panama had worked with international organizations and collaborated with neighbouring countries, including Costa Rica. The latter was particularly significant, as neither Panama nor Costa Rica had ratified the United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Furthermore, a bill was currently before all indigenous peoples in order to assess how a bilingual curriculum could be established with a view to best safeguarding indigenous languages for future generations.

Panama had also established a high-level commission, chaired by the Vice-Minister of Government and Justice present here today, to elaborate an agreement between the Government and indigenous communities. That agreement had been concluded in 2006. In February this year, the Government had established a task force to work with the Ombudsman as well as indigenous peoples to ensure that in April 2010 the final proposal on the territorial arrangement for the project to build a power plant, Hydro Project 75, would be available. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights had also undertaken efforts with regard to the enjoyment of human rights by the indigenous communities of the impacted communities.

The delegation underscored that the Government of Panama would not allow any violation of the rights of indigenous peoples, whether they lived in the indigenous territorial districts or outside. Indigenous affairs were not dealt with by the Government behind the backs of indigenous peoples; quite to the contrary, the Government engaged them in a dialogue, as highlighted by the previous Government that attempted to enter into dialogue with the San-San community to ensure that their concerns would be taken into account.

On the creation of the five indigenous territorial districts, also called camarcas, the delegation said that that approach was a comprehensive one, based on the particular needs of Panama’s indigenous peoples. The establishment of camarcas was an attempt to formally legalize pieces of land for the use of indigenous communities. Each indigenous territorial district could draw up its own leadership, giving rise to the organic charter that provided for significant autonomy of indigenous communities and was compatible with Panama’s national authorities.

As for questions on Panamanians of African descent, the delegation said that Panama had activities aimed at its large black community. Contrary to the Committee Members assumptions, there were also policies aimed at protecting and promoting the entire range of human rights of that particular segment of Panama’s society. It was not true that black Panamanians were marginalized. In that regard, Afro-descendant Panamanians held a number of high-level positions in the country, including in sports and public administration, among other sectors, and recent years had seen an increase in the importance of that population in public life. As to how black Panamanians had been dealt with in the context of the national census, participants had simply been asked whether they were of African descent.

On the Committee’s concern at the low number of discrimination complaints dealt with by the Ombudsman’s Office, the delegation said that, following the 1997 decree setting up the Office, measures had been taken to promulgate the ways in which citizens could file complaints. However, many people were not aware that discrimination existed and the Ombudsman therefore regularly delivered speeches on national television to sensitize the population on that issue and to inform it that any form of discrimination should be reported. The issue of admissibility also explained the low number of complaints treated. It was very important to thoroughly investigate all claims; if there were signs of racial discrimination, the issue would be pursued by the Ombudsman; but examination often highlighted that complaints related to other forms of discrimination. In addition to the Ombudsman’s Office, which provided guidance to victims of discrimination, implementation of the relevant laws was also ensured by officials at the district level, as well as the national police, which conducted inspections.

Turning to education issues, the delegation said that two years ago human rights specialization had been established as a new subject. Panama’s new Government believed in education and training as a channel to ensure full participation by all members of its society and had therefore decided to allot special hours dedicated to human rights education, which was established by law. It was the Government’s intention to continue making strides regarding education that effectively contributed to equality for all.

The Government recognized the delay in handing in the reports to the Committee for many years and would ensure that Panama would live up to the expectations resulting from its commitment to the Convention in the future. While the human rights situation in Panama was not perfect, the Government was in fact very committed to improve its performance in the field of human rights.

Further Questions and Comments by Committee Members

In a further round of questions and comments, Experts observed, among other things, that it had received communications from several organizations that worked in Panama suggesting that no problems relating to racism had been witnessed. However, a recent survey that included a question whether there was discrimination against African descendants highlighted that many people were not even aware that – if they occurred – such incidents would constitute a problem. In the opinion of the Government, were black and indigenous people in a disadvantaged position regarding the rest of the population?

A Committee Member asked for more information on the plight of the indigenous communities affected by the construction of the electric plant, which had been mentioned previously. There were reports according to which the company in question had total control of the area after it had signed a contract with the Government, and that it had obstructed indigenous people’s access to that area. Was that information correct? While great encouragement could be taken from the delegation’s assertion that indigenous people were no longer treated as objects but rather as subjects, what efforts had been made to ensure that indigenous communities freely gave their consent to the deal with the company, without being pressurized as had been done in previous years to make them agree? Had non-governmental organizations that supported indigenous people been invited to those negotiations? An Expert asked for the number of families that had been adversely affected by the project, as well as on the number of people that needed to be temporarily or permanently relocated as a result.

With regard to indigenous rights, an Expert asked whether the Government had any plans to accede to the International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.

Response by the Delegation

In response to these and other questions, the delegation said that discrimination, including discrimination against people of African descent, had existed throughout the Panama’s history, reaching back to the time of slavery. While the Government could not deny that there were people with racist attitudes, it underscored that it was not its intention to allow such attitudes to persist.

It was true that the former Government of Panama had transferred the responsibility of settling the dispute caused by the building of the power plant to a private enterprise. Nevertheless, the current Government was of the view that that was inappropriate. Non-governmental organizations had not been invited to the negotiations as the indigenous people had been represented by their lawyers. It was a fact that it had been an unequal discussion and it was now incumbent on the political will of the Government to play a balancing role in that regard.

On the questions on relocation, the delegation said that the relocation process merely consisted of transferring people by a couple of hundred metres, which also provided them with better conditions than they had had on their previous land. The Government had also built schools and health centres for the affected communities with active participation of the concerned ethnic groups in order to avoid culture clashes. As for temporary transfers, that was because there was a need to use certain areas for engineering works, but the target communities were not yet ready. Once those preparations were completed, the people would be moved there permanently. It was also true that there had been certain restrictions on the freedom of movement during specific periods, but that had been for security reasons.

Turning to the question of impediments to the advancement of indigenous affairs, the delegation said that there was certainly scope for improvement, for example, regarding development and investment plans. Efforts should also be undertaken to ensure that indigenous people sufficiently learned the national language to integrate into society, and that they sought professional training so as to provide for their own living. While there was therefore a need for further action on that issue, the delegation underscored that several laws had been reviewed and amended to take into account the needs of indigenous communities.

As for ILO Convention No. 169, the delegation explained that Panama would not accede to that Convention due to an inconsistency of its national legislation with the Convention’s provisions, which would cause several administrative, criminal and legislative conflicts and because that Convention went beyond the competence of the ILO and would necessitate changes to policies on land rights. Furthermore, in 1961 Panama had acceded to Convention No. 107, which had laid the basis for the development of Convention No. 169. While Panama therefore did not rule out applying some of the provisions of Convention 169, it was not ready to ratify it as of now.

Further Comments by Experts

Following up on that response, Experts noted that the difference between the ILO Convention No. 107 and No. 169 consisted mainly in the approach to indigenous people. While the provisions of Convention No. 107 were aimed at integration, those of No. 169 dealt more inclusively with the respect for the culture, tradition and languages of indigenous people, as well as with their right to a separate way of life, including land ownership and land use. The Government should thus continue to consider the ratification of ILO Convention No. 169 and account for the need to respect the way of life of indigenous peoples as set forth in that Convention, which was now generally accepted in wide parts of the world, including in the Latin American region.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

jose francisco CALI TZAY, the Committee Member serving as Rapporteur for the report of Panama, in provisional concluding observations, said the interactive dialogue with Panama had been a productive exchange of ideas. Nevertheless, there remained a concern over the discrepancies between the statements made by non-governmental organizations and those made by the delegation of Panama, between which a balance had to be struck.

Mr. Cali Tzay underscored that the plight of African descendants and that of indigenous peoples in Panama was of particular importance to the Committee. The Government needed to implement the discussed measures in that regard. Racism and racial discrimination against those groups of people were among the reasons why some individuals belonging to those groups had denied their identity. The question of whether some of the incidents discussed constituted a violation of the freedom of movement of Panamanians on their own land also remained a pertinent one.

Mr. Cali Tzay greatly lamented the fact that 84 per cent of the Panamanian indigenous community lived in conditions of extreme poverty, according to some reports, and that being part of that community was dangerous according to press reports. He would also have appreciated hearing more about the Government’s position on Somali refugees, who allegedly had not been given the opportunity to have their cases reviewed; on illegal Colombian refugees; and on the percentage of indigenous people that were allowed to participate at Panama’s roundtable dialogue.

In conclusion, Mr. Cali Tzay said the Committee would encourage Panama to adopt ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record