COMMITTEE CONSIDERS SITUATION IN SAINT LUCIA AND MOZAMBIQUE UNDER REVIEW PROCEDURE

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this afternoon discussed its early warning and emergency action procedure. It also considered the situation in Saint Lucia and Mozambique under its review procedure for countries whose reports are seriously overdue.

Committee Expert Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill, reporting on the actions of the Working Group on the Early Warning and Emergency Action Procedure, said it had taken under consideration four cases, including the case of several Shoshone tribes in the United States; and the situation of the Crimean Tatars. The case of Suriname was similar to that of the Shoshone. The procedure on the prevention of genocide was also an issue that had been discussed, and the Working Group had made decisions on how to take the matter forward.

Reporting on the situation in Saint Lucia, whose first to seventh periodic reports were overdue, Committee Expert Morten Kjaerum said a list of questions based on concerns related to Saint Lucia had been circulated. Saint Lucia had ratified the Convention in 1990, but had still not submitted a report. The Committee had last reviewed the issue in 2004, and had adopted provisional observations that were transmitted to the Government. In response, the Government had stated that racial discrimination was not an issue in Saint Lucia, but was unable to advise the Committee when the reports would be submitted. The Government also said that the reason the reports had not been submitted was due to weak organisational and institutional capacities in the country.

On Mozambique, Committee Expert Régis de Gouttes said information had been received from the Government that the report had been drawn up, but it could not be officially provided because it had not been approved by the Council of Ministers. More recently, on 3 August 2005, a note verbale had been received from the Mission, saying that following approval, the report would be submitted as soon as possible "before the end of the year". The Committee decided to inform Mozambique that it would welcome the report, and that it had prepared a list of questions, and although it was not transmitting these questions to the State party, it would expect a response to them during the meeting with the State party when the report was examined.

The Committee's meeting will be held at 10 a.m. on Monday 15 August 2005, when it will take up consideration of the fourteenth to eighteenth reports of Nigeria (CERD/C/476/Add.3).

Early Warning and Emergency Action Procedure

PATRICIA NOZIPHO JANUARY-BARDILL, Committee Expert, reporting on the actions of the Working Group on the Early Warning and Emergency Action Procedure, said it had met three times during the current session, and had discussed the four cases on its agenda. Two briefings had been given by two of the complainants, who were asking the Committee to use the urgent action procedure to deal with their complaint.

The four cases under consideration included the case of several Shoshone tribes in the United States. A request from the Research and Support of Indigenous Peoples of Crimea Foundation was also received with regard to the situation of the Crimean Tatars, who had been deported in 1944, and who had continued to suffer confiscation of their goods, lands, and houses. Some decisions had been made in this regard. The case of Suriname was similar to that of the Shoshone, and focused on property rights. The procedure on the prevention of genocide was also an issue that had been discussed, and the Working Group had made decisions on how to take the matter forward.

Regarding the Shoshone case, the agreement that had been reached by consensus was that there was a need for the Committee to have a dialogue with a representative of the United States on this topic in order to gain further information and a different perspective. A meeting would probably take place on Monday 15 August 2005. The matter had to be discussed, and something done with regard to follow-up before the end of the session.

With respect to the Crimean Tatars, the Ukrainian Government would be asked to respond to a list of questions that would be compiled and dispatched to the State party asking for a report addressing the issue. Rather than delay taking any specific action, the Working Group had chosen to write a letter to the Government asking for specific answers. With respect to Suriname, the Working Group agreed it was appropriate to use the urgent action procedure in this circumstance, as the Government of Suriname had done very little to respond to earlier follow-up action. On the prevention of genocide, an in-depth discussion had been held, and rather than amending the 1993 Working Group paper, it had been decided to develop a separate text on genocide, showing the logic of the process and relating it more to threats of extreme violence rather than genocide.

The Committee Members were urged to read the submitted papers, and then an open-ended Working Group would be convened, following the submission of a draft of a paper on genocide by Committee Experts Morten Kjaerum and Agha Shahi, which would then be submitted to the High Commissioner on Human Rights, and then the Committee would examine the document again. It was hoped it would be adopted in March next year, Ms. January-Bardill said.

Following the presentation, Committee Experts then expressed their opinions, mostly agreeing with the work done by the Working Group, which reflected a consensus on behalf of the Committee on how to proceed for the initiation of the various procedures on these issues, and this process was adopted by the Committee.

Saint Lucia

MORTEN KJAERUM, the Committee Expert serving as Country Rapporteur, raising the situation in Saint Lucia under the emergency action review procedure, said a list of questions based on concerns related to Saint Lucia had been circulated. Saint Lucia had ratified the Convention in 1990, but had still not submitted a report, and hence the initial to seventh ones were due. The Committee had last reviewed the issue in 2004, and had adopted provisional observations that were transmitted to the Government. In response, the Government had stated that racial discrimination was not an issue in Saint Lucia, but was unable to advise the Committee when the reports due would be submitted.

The Government informed the Committee that the reason it was not able to submit the reports was due to weak organisational and institutional capacities in the country. Saint Lucia was only party to three international human rights treaties. According to information, the population was over 150,000 persons. The majority of the population was Roman Catholic. There appeared to be a lack of information on the ethnic composition of the country, although the latest census appeared to be very comprehensive in other regards. It appeared the majority of the population was of African descent, with Asian and mixed minorities. The data available on the indigenous people was not conclusive, and the Government should be invited to provide such information to the Committee, as well as that on the ethnic make-up of the country as a whole.

Further information was required on the legal status of the indigenous peoples, and on measures taken to ensure preservation of the culture and heritage of the indigenous peoples, and remedies available to them in case of destruction of their sites. The status of the Convention in domestic law was also unclear, and information as to whether it could be invoked before the courts would be of interest. From the wording of the Constitution, it appeared that discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin and descent was not included. There were also numerous exceptions to the prohibition of discrimination in the Constitution, and an explanation was required. Further information on the mandate and activities of the Ombudsman would be helpful, as would be data on any complaints received by that body, which did not appear to function in agreement with the Paris Principles.

While the Government appeared to respect the human rights of its citizens, there were reports to the contrary, including reports of abuse of prisoners. The State party should provide disaggregated data on the linguistic composition of the country. There were significant disparities in urban and rural areas, and in the economic situation of the population. Youth unemployment was reportedly of concern, particularly with regard to young women. The State party should provide information on education and other disaggregated data linked to employment, among other things.

Committee Members then discussed various topics and issues linked to the situation in Saint Lucia, including whether a question regarding the offering of technical support by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights could be included in the list of issues; the public or private nature of the list of issues; and the expansion of the consideration of Saint Lucia.

The list of issues was adopted, and would be sent to the State party, and it was also decided to expand the consideration of the State party.


Mozambique

RÉGIS DE GOUTTES, the Committee Expert serving as Country Rapporteur, presenting the situation in Mozambique which had submitted an initial report in 1984, but none since, said Mozambique had ratified the Convention in 1983. The initial report had been examined in the absence of a delegation. The Committee had re-examined the situation in 1993, under the relevant procedure, noting that the absence of a report resulted from the war in the country, but asking the Government to produce a new report, which had never come to the Committee. These were the conditions in which Mozambique was placed on the agenda at this session, and a list of issues prepared for submission to the State party.

Last July, the Permanent Mission had communicated with the Committee that the report had been drawn up in Portuguese, but it could not be officially provided because it had not been approved by the Council of Ministers. More recently, on 3 August 2005, a note verbale had been received from the Mission, saying that following approval, the report would be submitted as soon as possible “before the end of the year”. A summary or plan of the report was annexed to the note verbale.

An analysis of the situation in Mozambique had been prepared with a presentation of the general situation, but an overview would be given, as there was now a promise of the report. The country contained a large number of refugees, and was one of the poorest countries of the world with many difficulties including the spread of HIV/AIDS. A number of issues of particular concern, including discrimination against women, trafficking in human beings, corruption, and the refugee question had all been examined, and this presentation was available to all Committee Members, but as a new report was promised, there were two possible methods of continuing the process. Either in view of the note verbale, the Committee could postpone the examination of the report which was being completed, or it could consider that more needed to be done in terms of approaching the Government, as the essential thing was not just to receive a report, it was to receive as good and substantial a report as possible.

Mr. de Gouttes proposed, in order to allow the Government to finalise the report in the best possible way, to communicate the prepared list of issues, which was a typical list of questions, and he hoped the Representative of the Permanent Mission had been advised of this. A letter would be sent to the Government in order to remind it of its obligations under the Convention, and to remind it to provide its report a response to the main questions which the Committee was interested in. This would facilitate both completion of the report and also place a certain pressure on the Government to comply with its obligations.

Committee Experts then raised various issues, including whether, as the report was completed, sending a list of questions might not cause it to be further delayed as it was reviewed. This was a topic of much discussion, with Experts variously taking the position that this would either slow down the sending as the report, as Mozambique might consider this a reason to revise the text as a whole; or that this would aid Mozambique in finishing the report, indicating what topics the Committee would be interested in, and enabling them to prepare answers to this effect; or to reflect the situation in the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly informing them of the situation.

As a result of the discussion, it was decided to inform Mozambique that the Committee would welcome the report, and that the Committee had prepared a list of questions, and although it was not transmitting these questions to the State party, it would expect a response to them during the meeting with the State party when the report was examined.



For use of information media; not an official record


CRD05030E