Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination holds informal meeting with States Parties

Committee on the Elimination
  of Racial Discrimination 

28 April 2017

This afternoon the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination held its fifth informal meeting with States parties. 

In her opening remarks, Anastasia Crickley, Committee Chairperson, noted a rise in racist speech across the world, as well as the progress made by State Parties to implement the Convention and to eliminate racial discrimination.  She expressed hope that States parties would continue to support the Committee in its work.

Committee Expert Alexei Avtonomov reminded that the Convention had entered into force in 1969, while the Committee had begun its work in 1970.  The Convention was one of the main international human rights instruments and so far 178 States had acceded to the Convention.

Presenting key highlights from State Parties’ reports, Committee Expert Fatimata-Binta Victoire Dah said that States were facing major societal changes, multifaceted economic crises and an unprecedented migrant crisis.  Racially based hate speech and hate crimes seemed to have been States’ main concerns, whereas the Roma, indigenous peoples, non-nationals, migrants and Muslims were the main victims of hate speech and hate crimes.

Anwar Kemal, Committee Expert, said that one of the more worrying aspects of States parties’ submission was the phenomenon of hate speech and xenophobia, particularly in European countries.  Some countries combatted hate speech through awareness raising, human rights education, trainings for law enforcement officers and judges, and the use of national action plans.

In the ensuing discussion, States raised the issue of monitoring and reporting fatigue, namely the duplication of recommendation, questions and opinion of various committees.  Accordingly, they asked how the simplified reporting procedure could be introduced.  States valued the interaction with the Committee and its remarks which were helpful in the development of national strategies to combat racial discrimination.  The rise of hate speech, in particular of Afrophobia, Gypsyphobia, Islamophobia, racism against Saami, homophobia, biphobia and transphobia, were cited as some of the most important challenges. 

Speaking during the discussion were: Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Guatemala, Montenegro, Ecuador, Ukraine, Bolivia, Sweden, Israel, United States, Mauritius, Finland, Serbia, China, Brazil, Japan, Belgium, Venezuela, Colombia, Mauritania, and Jamaica.

The Committee will next meet in public at 10 a.m. on Monday, 1 May, to hold informal meeting with civil society organizations from Kenya, Cyprus and Bulgaria, whose reports will be considered next week.

Opening Remarks
 
ANASTASIA CRICKLEY, Committee Chairperson, introduced the meeting “The Convention of All Forms Elimination of Racial Discrimination in Today’s World”, noting a rise in racist speech across the world.  She highlighted the progress made by States parties to implement the Convention and to eliminate racial discrimination.  She expressed hope that States parties would continue to support the Committee in its work.  The Convention was valid for today’s world and provided a comprehensive framework to combat and identify racial discrimination.  She reminded of racial discrimination’s historical connection with slavery, which was also connected with other forms of oppression, including the oppression of persons of African descent and women.  Ms. Crickley noted that the Committee valued States parties’ comments and continued dialogue.
 
Experts’ Presentations

ALEXEI AVTONOMOV, Committee Expert, reminded that the Convention had entered into force in 1969 and the Committee had begun its work in 1970.  The Convention was one of the main international human rights instruments, and so far 178 States had acceded to the Convention.  The Committee had made 716 concluding observations, had received 113 reports on subsequent actions, and had made 53 decisions on individual complaints.  In 1994, a procedure had been adopted on urgent measures on cases where the Committee had identified a threat of serious human rights violations.  The Committee had been paying attention to especially vulnerable groups, such as the Roma, Dalits, migrants, non-citizens, asylum seekers, refugees, indigenous peoples, and persons of African descent.   The Committee was drawing attention to hate speech and had issued a recommendation to States in that context.  The Committee also regarded religion as an issue that often cross-cut ethnic issues.  

FATIMATA-BINTA VICTOIRE DAH, Committee Expert, presented key highlights from States parties’ reports.  States were facing societal changes, multifaceted economic crises and an unprecedented migrant crisis.  Racially based hate speech and hate crimes seemed to have been States’ main concerns.  The Roma, indigenous peoples, non-nationals, migrants and Muslims were the main victims of hate speech and hate crimes.  Everyone insisted on taking immediate measures to tackle challenges.  It was necessary to ensure that education for human rights was implemented, and that there was awareness rising through media and among State officials.  States parties that had gone through conflict dealt with challenges by adopting more suitable legislation and truth, justice and reconciliation commissions. 

ANWAR KEMAL, Committee Expert, noticed that States parties had responded very positively to the interaction with Committee Experts, and characterized it as a very positive experience.  One of the more worrying aspects of States parties’ submissions was the phenomenon of hate speech and xenophobia, particularly in European countries.  Some 50-60 percent of cases of discrimination had adverse psychological impact on people.  It destroyed the basis of social trust.  Some countries combatted hate speech through awareness raising, human rights education, trainings for law enforcement officers and judges.  The use of national plans of action to combat discrimination was another important aspect.  Some countries had pointed out to the low level of education among the population as a factor to exacerbated discrimination. 

States’ Feedback on Experience in Addressing Racial Discrimination and Engaging with the Committee

Spain stated that a comprehensive strategy for combatting racial discrimination and xenophobia was a priority for the Government.  The Government had instituted various mechanisms and bodies, integration policies for migrant communities, and the protection of the most vulnerable groups, such as women, Muslims, Roma and Jewish people.  The authorities continued to raise awareness and work with civil society to prevent and combat any form of discrimination at school, especially bullying.  Despite having received 8,000 new migrants in the past several months, Spain had continued to work strongly to eliminate racial discrimination.  The interaction with the Committee had been generally positive.  Spain had invested significant efforts to draft reports, and it valued the Committee’s observations.  It made a particular effort to bring technical teams to reviews.  That was a sign of political commitment to the Convention.

France underlined disquieting anti-Muslim and racist acts following terrorist attacks.  France had one of the most comprehensive sets of legislations in the world to punish acts of discrimination.  The Government had undertaken actions to prevent hate speech and prejudices, for which education played a primary role.  It aimed to build education tools in that respect and to run awareness-rising campaigns to promote diversity in the media.  As for the experiences with the Committee, thanks to the Committee’s recommendations, France had eliminated travelling passes for the Roma.

Italy acknowledged that racist attitudes persisted in some parts of the Italian society, which required concrete action.  Italy was fully committed to implementing new legislative measures and a national strategy on racism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination, in particular with respect to migrants.  Italy had  always had a very open and constructive dialogue with the Committee.  One of the main follow-up commitments was to organize events as part of the Decade of People of African Descent.

Austria reiterated its support for the international independent monitoring system for human rights.  Austria took reporting and dialogue with the Committee very seriously and had devoted a great deal of resources to it.  The problems faced by Austria was the increased number of comments, recommendations and opinions, and the lack of harmonization of working methods among Treaty Bodies.  A simplified reporting procedure would thus be helpful.  There was also a duplication of issues addressed by various committees and an unmanageable number of comments for States to handle. 

Guatemala underscored that the main challenges were awareness raising for the Mestizo urban population, full enjoyment of indigenous peoples’ rights, indigenous women, campaign on social media and racism.  It aimed to reduce inequality gaps and improve access to justice, which continued to be available only in Spanish.  There was a lack of full access to legal service for indigenous persons, and a definition of the offence of racial discrimination.  Guatemala had an open-door policy with Treaty Bodies, and the State had had an ongoing communication with the Committee. 

Montenegro drew attention the latest steps taken by the Government to improve the framework for combatting discrimination.  Specific new forms of discrimination had been made, such as prohibition of racial discrimination under the Criminal Code.  Aware of the gap between the Roma and Egyptians and the rest of the population, the Government had come up with a strategy for their social inclusion.  As part of the European Union accession process, all European standards had been timely met.  A very significant positive change had been the result of those measures, although not entirely sufficient.  Reducing school drop-out rate of Roma and Egyptian children, and increased access to healthcare had been some of the priorities, as well as reducing the levels of domestic violence.  The Committee’s recommendations had a great importance in guiding the Government’s work.

Ecuador firmly believed that the fight against racial discrimination had to be linked to strong political determination.  Hate speech and hate crimes had been criminalized under the law.  The country still needed to make further efforts to guarantee better access to education and healthcare, and to completely eradicate racial profiling and negative stereotypes in media.  In order to have a fairer and more inclusive societies, the rights of all minorities had to be upheld.

Ukraine noted that since the illegal occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, a system of ethnic Russian dominance had been installed and sought to destroy the identity of ethnic Ukrainians, Tatars and other ethnic groups in Crimea.  Numerous testimonies of Russian crimes during the illegal annexation of Crimea could be found.  The Russian Federation had continued its discrimination of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians. Accordingly, Ukraine had launched a case against the Russian Federation in front of the International Criminal Court.  The Court had concluded that the Russian Federation had to ensure the rights of the Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians, as well as the uphold the provisions of the Minsk Agreements.  Ukraine called on the Committee to pay proper attention to those conclusions.

Bolivia said that its main challenges sprung from the decolonisation process, namely work needed to eliminate racist practices of the colonial era, which was why modern Bolivia promoted a pluralistic dialogue.  It asked the Committee to look at the problem of international borders and the wellbeing of populations.  More should be done for human rights at international borders to eliminate racial discrimination.

Responses by Experts
 
ANASTASIA CRICKLEY, Committee Chairperson, clarified that there was no budget for country visits, adding that the Committee was working on ways to avoid the overlap in issuing recommendations, comments and opinions among different committees, notably with the Committee Against Torture.

Speaking of States’ concerns that hate speech was particularly corrosive, Experts noted that the Committee had to work harder to understand the dynamics of hate speech on the ground and to propose ways to address it.  There should be more political will on the part of States to simplify the reporting procedure, and to make the dialogue more lively and efficient. 

One Expert highlighted the initiative by States parties from Latin America and the Caribbean to hold the second regional conference on racism and racial discrimination as part of the Decade of Persons of African Descent.   More and greater impact should be built on that coalition of States.

States’ Observations

Sweden stated that it needed improved coordination and monitoring with respect to fighting racism, dialogue with civil society, strengthened preventive measures online and a more active legal system.  The National Plan presented an overview of the current situation of racism, such as Afrophobia, Gypsyphobia, Islamophobia, racism against Saami, homophobia, biphobia and transphobia.

Israel said it was fully committed to preventing racial discrimination, and it was examining the ways for implementing various Committee recommendations.  The Government reminded the public that racial discrimination was not only morally wrong, but also punishable by law.  Preventing hate crimes and propaganda was part of educational programmes, as well as lessons on democracy, minority and civil rights.  Israel was fully committed to tackling the issues pertaining to racism.

United States remained committed to combating racism and discrimination.  It had submitted three periodic reports to the Committee so far, and it was currently preparing its fourth periodic report.

Mauritius stated it had developed adequate legal framework to prevent discrimination and it prohibited discrimination on various grounds.  It had focused on online discrimination.  In 2012, it had enacted the Equal Opportunities Act.   Mauritius had had fruitful dialogue with the Committee.  Most of the recommendations from 2013 had been implemented.  

Finland found the dialogue with the Committee fruitful.  The Government was concerned about the hate speech against asylum seekers.  A survey conducted in 2017 compiled attitudes on immigration and would be used in adequate programmes and policies.  Were there any plans to offer the simplified reporting procedure to all States?

Serbia stated that the Convention was the main source of addressing discrimination in the country.  Anti-discrimination was the corner stone of the human rights policy of Serbia.  Two new national instruments had been established to that end.  The situation of the Roma and of refugees and migrants were some of the greatest challenges for the country at the moment.  A framework had been developed to protect minority rights through councils of national minorities.  The migrant crisis had posed many security challenges, as more than one million refugees and migrants had passed through Serbia recently.  No cases of physical attacks on migrants had been reported.  The cooperation with the Committee had been constructive and useful in terms of recommendations. 

Responses by Experts

Experts drew attention to faster flows of information and stereotypes that led to discrimination.  That was a global challenges that needed to be addressed as soon as possible.  In some ethnic communities there was more unemployment and poverty than in other communities.  Experts welcomed the frank admission of challenges faced by different States.  Resource challenges were considerable as countries far from Geneva found it difficult to finance trips. 

States’ Observations

China welcomed the meeting, and expressed hope that the Committee would strengthen its communication with States in the spirit of mutual respect.  The Government had always seriously implemented all provisions of the Conventions.  In some countries, xenophobia and racism were on the rise, and the rights of minorities were not protected.

Brazil commended the early warning and urgent-action procedures of the Committee.  The situation of indigenous people had been examined through the Committee’s urgent-action procedures.  Socio-economic conditions among Afro-Brazilians had improved.  The Government had undertaken normative and institutional changes to foster the participation of Afro-Brazilians, such as quotas in the federal education system.  At the moment, 50 percent of university vacancies had been reserved for students from public schools.  That was a significant normative breakthrough which would allow Afro-Brazilians and indigenous peoples to enter higher education.  A programme was drawn up to combat racial profiling and institutional racism.  Race and colour had become important items in collection of data in order to address the problem of invisibility that often affected Afro-Brazilians.

Japan stated that negative feelings towards certain groups were easily ignited by acts of violence.  Education and awareness raising, thus, played a very important role.  The Act on Elimination of Hate Speech had been enacted to promote public awareness raising activities about the importance of tolerance.  Cooperation with civil society had also been strengthened.

Belgium reiterated its full support for the Convention, which was highly relevant in today’s world.  The challenge remained great for all Member States, especially in addressing hate speech.  Belgium had established a legal framework to penalize xenophobia and hate speech.  It shared concern about the reporting fatigue and the limited capacities of national administrations.  Belgium encouraged the Committee to consider the question  of reporting procedures, which had been patchy among the Committees. 

Venezuela highlighted the efforts to implement the principles of the Convention.  Tackling racial discrimination was of vital importance in achieving equal society in Venezuela.  The fight against racism was a high-level policy in the country, with a focus on the intersection of social exclusion and poverty and discrimination.  Venezuela reiterated support for the work of the Committee.

Colombia stated that the National Plan of Action included a plan for Afro-Colombian people.  One of the main challenges was social inclusion of ethnic groups and the self-identification of Afro-Colombians due to negative stereotypes.  Much of the progress was based on the Committee’s recommendations, particularly those concerning the victims of armed violence, indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians.

Mauritania recalled that it was a multicultural country.  All of the communities had lived together for centuries.  The Constitution ensured equality of all Mauritanians under law.  As for the cooperation with the Committee, Mauritania was following up on the recommendations and was introducing reforms.  The Government was fully committed to the letter and spirit of the Convention.  The fight against racial discrimination might vary among States, but education was a critically important tool.

Jamaica urged the Committee to continue reminding Member States of their obligations under the Convention.  The Convention remained a fundamental convention which required unabridged attention and commitment.  Racism, as part of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, was consciously built and it would take time to be dismantled.  Globalisation and its challenges with respect to racial discrimination required the Convention’s application.

Responses by Experts

Experts drew attention to the issue of Treaty Body strengthening, which could not be achieved without adequate resources, such as the use of criminal codes against political parties that used hate speech.  They appreciated the feedback provided by State Parties because it clarified difficulties in the implementation of the Convention. 

Experts noted that societies had to strive to find enrichment and not fear in living together.  They stressed the importance of the frank exchange of views with State Parties, adding that more such meetings should be held in the future.  Monitoring fatigue, especially in regions where there were multiple monitoring mechanisms, was indeed a challenge for States.  Indeed, the multiplication of reporting mechanisms was one of the most important problems.  However, that problem could only be resolved by States parties. 
Unfortunately, due to the current global events, the Convention was more valid than ever.  The building of imaginary and physical walls to hinder migration and multicultural societies was on the rise.  Everyone should be vigilant about those types of actions.

Concluding Remarks

ANSTASIA CRICKLEY, Committee Chairperson, said that three countries had stated their intention to adopt the simplified reporting procedure.  The Committee was adopting it in an incremental manner.  Structural and institutional racism remained one of the major global problems.  Particular forms of discrimination were on the rise, such as against Muslims and migrants; another issue was racial profiling.  Contributions of other instruments of the United Nations, such as the Sustainable Development Goals and the Global Compact on Migration, should be considered as part of the Committee’s work. 

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr