Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Holds Informal Meeting with States Parties to the Convention
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today held an informal meeting with States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Opening the meeting, Gun Kut, Committee Chair, said the Committee’s mandate was to serve its States parties by monitoring their actions in line with the Convention. The Committee was facing extremely difficult times, including that two of the main support bases were eroding: secretarial support and meeting time. This was a vicious cycle which prevented the Committee from delivering its responsibilities. Prompt action was needed and unless this happened, the Committee would face more serious problems. The Committee looked forward to States’ engagement, ideas and support.
Michal Balcerzak, Committee Vice-Chair, and Faith Dikeledi Pansy Tlakula, Committee Expert and Follow up Rapporteur, also provided opening statements.
The discussion with States parties addressed topics including the importance of the Committee’s work, and concern around the United Nations liquidity crisis and the importance of providing sustainable resources to the human rights treaty bodies through UN80, among other issues.
Several Committee members then briefed participants on various other aspects of the Committee’s work.
Speaking in the discussion were Guatemala, Spain, Mexico, Qatar, Slovenia and the State of Palestine.
The programme of work and other documents related to the Committee’s one hundred and seventeenth session can be found here. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the meetings can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 1 May at 4:30 p.m. to close its one hundred and seventeenth session.
Opening Statements
GUN KUT, Committee Chair, began by introducing the three new Committee members: Shaikha Al-Misnad (Qatar), Carla Ivette Pousa Caride (Panama), and Saul Vincente Vaquez (Mexico). The Committee’s mandate was to serve its States parties by monitoring their actions in line with the Convention. Last year marked the sixtieth anniversary of the Convention; States were thanked for their participation and support. The Committee was facing extremely difficult times, including that two of the main support bases were eroding: secretarial support and meeting time. The Committee’s meeting time had been decreased from 10 weeks to five and half. This meant less States parties reports would be considered, resulting in an accumulation of backlog, which in turn resulted in States being disincentivised in submitting regular reports. This was a vicious cycle which prevented the Committee from delivering its responsibilities.
The Committee asked the States parties to be aware of the dire straits and provide support. Prompt action was needed and unless this happened, the Committee would face more serious problems. The Committee still did not have confirmation that its one hundred and eighteenth session scheduled in August would go ahead as planned. Mr. Kut recalled article 8, paragraph 6 of the Convention, which stated that the expenses of the Committee should be borne by States parties to the Convention. The Committee asked States parties how they could cooperate to address the current situation which amounted to a crisis? What specific actions were envisaged to alleviate this situation? The Committee looked forward to the engagement, ideas and support from States.
MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Vice-Chair, said the presence of States parties was welcome and showed their commitment to the system. The Committee would only be able to review 10 State party reports this year, providing that the August session was confirmed. In 2024 and 2023, the Committee was regularly reviewing 18 reports annually. There were 37 pending reports; States were encouraged to adhere to deadlines and send through reports as scheduled, as this contributed to the way the meeting time was calculated. Due to capacity restraints, the Committee could not process many lists of issues prior to reporting.
The Committee would continue to exercise its mandate and function. The answer to the problems did not lie within the system; it was in the hands of the member States. Without new ideas and commitment at the State level, the Committee would not move forward, but rather its capacity would continue to shrink. Mr. Balcerzak said he still believed in the system, but the Committee could do much more. The Committee stood ready to work in the interest of the Convention and in the interest of victims of racial discrimination.
FAITH DIKELEDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert and Follow-up Rapporteur, welcomed the representatives of the States parties present for the dialogue. She said it was her responsibility as Rapporteur to ensure that some of the recommendations that the Committee made were implemented and that the Committee received a report on their implementation within a period of one year. She appealed to States to assist the Committee in these actions.
Discussion with States Parties
In the ensuing discussion, representatives of States parties, among other things, thanked the Committee Experts for their work and dedication and for convening the meeting. The dialogue provided an opportunity for an exchange of views on the Committee’s resources. The newly elected members of the Committee were congratulated, with speakers wishing them every success in carrying out their roles. Speakers expressed their commitment to the Convention and the Committee’s work, which remained essential. Speakers reaffirmed their willingness to continue constructive engagement with the Committee.
Some speakers highlighted national efforts to follow-up the recommendations and observations maintained by the Committee, including an open-door policy to treaty body mechanisms, as well as the implementation of anti-discriminatory legislation. This showed the system continued to work and bring about tangible change. The Committee built trust in the treaty body system and helped States tackle the global challenges of today. One speaker noted that it was vital to have an international body like the Committee which held up a mirror, including through asking the uncomfortable questions. Any approach which led to polarisation needed to be avoided, another speaker said.
The liquidity crisis to the United Nations was severely undermining the activities of the treaty bodies and was a major concern. The cancelling and postponement of reviews directly impacted the Committee’s ability to address racial discrimination, having a real impact on the victims. Speakers reiterated support to the Committee and to the treaty bodies as a pillar of the national human rights architecture. Some speakers were further concerned about the UN80 move towards a slimmed down Secretariat. It was essential that this pillar was guaranteed sustainable funding to fulfil its functions. UN80 must strengthen the human rights pillar and provide the necessary resources. There was a need to be more creative, to see how to harness synergies among different bodies. The Secretariat was crucial to enable all Experts to carry out their work.
Other Statements by Committee Experts
STAMATIA STAVRINAKI, Committee Expert and Chair of the Working Group on Individual Complaints, thanked the States parties for their support in these turbulent times. The complaints mechanism allowed individuals or groups of individuals to submit complaints under the Convention, allowing the Committee to see how hidden cases could hinder the implementation of the Convention at the national level. Unfortunately, this was an overlooked procedure, with less than one third of the States parties having accepted it. During this session, the Committee had discussed four cases of persons facing violations of racial discrimination. Eighteen cases were now pending, which the Committee did not have the resources to examine in due time. Ms. Stavrinaki requested the support of States, by accepting article 14, and by providing junior professional officers to work on the cases.
IBRAHIMA GUISSE, Committee Vice Chair and Coordinator of the Working Group on Early Warning and Urgent Action, said it was an honour for the Committee to hold these more informal meetings with States parties. The Working Group on Early Warning and Urgent Action was an important procedure designed to prevent a situation from deteriorating further. The Group worked on xenophobia, violence and hatred, often looking at seemingly normal events which could suddenly deteriorate. Once a situation was analysed, actions were made, including the sending of letters to States parties. States were invited to be as reactive as possible if a letter was received under this mechanism to help prevent the deterioration of a situation.
CHINSUNG CHUNG, Committee Expert and Follow-up Rapporteur to the recommendations of the Ad-Hoc Conciliation Commission on the inter-State communication submitted by the State of Palestine against Israel, said the inter-State communication submitted by the State of Palestine in 2018 was declared admissible in 2021. The Commission was established in 2021, with its work concluded in 2024 with the adoption of the report which included recommendations to various stakeholders. The Committee had called on all States parties to take action following its conclusions on this case, in which the independent Commission had identified patterns of systematic racism against Palestinians. Since the report had been published, the situation in Palestine had been worsening, including the adoption of the death penalty which applied exclusively to Palestinian detainees. The Committee urged all States parties to respond substantively and without delay to the request for information under the follow–up procedure.
JIAN GUAN, Committee Vice Chair, said the Committee’s general recommendations to States parties were intended to clarify the obligations of the Convention to States parties, provide guidance, and help States parties prevent and eliminate racial discrimination through legislative and policy developments. Since its establishment, the Committee had issued 39 general recommendations, with the fortieth recommendation to be completed in the near future. Two general recommendations on the rights of migrants had been launched in conjunction with the Committee on Migrant Workers. The upcoming general recommendation focused on reparations for the harms inflicted by colonialism, and was currently under discussion within the Committee. It would be based on the Convention and make recommendations and comments within the Committee’s mandate.
A Committee Expert asked how the Committee’s work could be more helpful and effective for States?
Another Expert thanked States for their support for the Committee during these troubling times. There were numerous States that had appointed indigenous ambassadors, which was a mark of progress. States were encouraged to continue with plans to promote the rights of indigenous peoples, and the development of legislation in this regard.
One Committee Expert said the Committee had appointed focal points to various working groups which were supported by many States parties. The Expert congratulated the resolution of Ghana pertaining to persons of African descent, which was adopted in the General Assembly in March. The Committee was elaborating a new general recommendation which aligned with this resolution.
Closing Remarks
GUN KUT, Committee Chair, thanked States parties for attending the meeting and Committee members for their interventions. Mr. Kut assured States parties that every single activity the Committee was engaged in was based on cooperation, rather than confrontation. The Committee needed the support, ideas and criticism of States parties, to work on improving its methods of work. The Committee had delivered its promises; now it was States’ turn. This morning, the Committee had listened to the work of the Ad hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, which was working on an additional protocol to close the gaps in the Convention. States were called upon to support this work as well as the work of the Committee.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CERD26.008E