HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONSIDERS REPORT OF THE NETHERLANDS, THE NETHERLANDS ANTILLES AND ARUBA

The Human Rights Committee this morning concluded its consideration of the fourth periodic report of the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba on measures undertaken to implement the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Presenting the report on the Netherlands, Hirsch Ballin, Minister of Justice of the Netherlands, said that Dutch society was characterized by a wide range of religious ideologies, beliefs, lifestyles and value patterns. That social diversity was seen as a great good in the Netherlands, and pluralism of values was seen as an essential characteristic of the Dutch democratic State under the rule of law. It was therefore extremely important that the tensions that inevitably sometime arose from that pluralism were seen against the background of the said fundamental rights democracy and rule of law. The Dutch Government had taken a wide range of measures to act upon indifference and to promote tolerance. That would help to achieve cohesion between people.

Dick Piar, Attorney-General of the Netherlands Antilles, introducing the report on the Netherlands Antilles, said that the constitutional restructuring of the Netherlands Antilles had been a major development in the past two decades. New referendums had been held which had supported a separate country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands for Curacao and St. Maarten and the integration of Bonaire, Saba and St. Eustatius as public bodes within the Netherlands. On prisons and police issues, the Government of the Netherlands Antilles had been able to make some of the required improvements to the buildings of the prison facilities and detention centers; and recruitment and training of police and prison personnel had also taken place.

Robert Pietersz, Attorney-General of Aruba, introducing the report of Aruba, said a complete revision and modernization of Aruba’s Criminal Code had taken place. The new draft had now been reviewed by the Advisory Council and the aim was to have it adopted by Parliament before the end of this year. The introduction of the new Code would also completely revise and modernize juvenile criminal law. Another important development regarded the fight against modern forms of slavery: in 2002 legislation had been passed which made human smuggling a criminal offence and further amplified the scope on human rights.

During the dialogue with the delegation, Experts were particularly interested in questions relating to the asylum procedure, since the Netherlands had one of Europe’s highest acceptance rates and were about to implement new legislation. Grounds for asylum that went beyond the provisions of the Geneva Conventions were also discussed. Experts further asked questions regarding procedures for and long periods of pre-trial detention, especially in the context of counter-terrorism measures. Further questions concerned, among others, the participation of women in government and the labour market; the high number of cases of euthanasia and protections against abuse; the wearing of headscarves and religious symbols in public, particularly in the schools; detention of juveniles; and the presence of lawyers during police questioning.

The delegation also included members of the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport; the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment; the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations; the Attorney-General of the Netherlands Antilles; the Directorate of Judicial Affairs of the Netherlands Antilles; the Directorate of Labour Affairs of the Netherlands Antilles; the Public Prosecutor’s offices of the Netherlands Antilles; the Directorate of Foreign Relations of the Netherlands Antilles; the Attorney-General of Aruba; the Department of Foreign Affairs Aruba; the Ministry of Justice of Aruba; and the Permanent Mission of the Netherlands to the United Nations at Geneva.

When the Committee resumes its work tomorrow, Thursday, 16 July at 3 p.m. it will start its review of the initial report of Chad (CCPR/C/TCD/1).

Report of the Netherlands

The fourth periodic report of the Netherlands (CCPR/C/NET/4) notes that, in the new Aliens Act of April 2001, the general principles of policy on aliens remain unchanged; the Netherlands pursues a restrictive policy on the admission of aliens, with the exception of refugees. The main changes are that, under the former procedure, rejected asylum-seekers could lodge an objection and ask for their case to be reconsidered. This administrative objection stage has ceased to exist. Decisions on applications must now be made within six months, and rejected applicants may apply for judicial review by the courts. They may remain in the Netherlands pending the outcome of this application for review; there is no longer any need to obtain a separate decision to this effect. Concerning female genital mutilation for grounds for asylum, while the Netherlands has not incorporated any interpretative guidance or procedural safeguards in legislation, women who fear that they will be subjected to female genital mutilation and cannot find protection elsewhere can obtain asylum in the Netherlands. Regarding long-stay asylum-seekers, over 2,300 foreign nationals were granted a residence permit in 2002-2003 under an amnesty from the Minister for Immigration and Integration. After consultation with the Association of Netherlands Municipalities and the four major cities, the Government has decided to make an extra effort to arrange the return of approximately 26,000 asylum-seekers covered by the old Aliens Act. This applies to those who are staying in accommodation provided either by the Central Reception Organization for Asylum-Seekers or by the municipalities.

The report of Aruba (CCPR/C/NET/4/Add.1) notes that the new Civil Code of Aruba entered into force on 1 January 2002. Book 1 of the new Civil Code replaced the old law of persons and family law, abolishing many discriminatory provisions. Aruba does not have the death penalty. Under the Criminal Code, terms of imprisonment are either determinate or for life. However, the Criminal Code of Aruba is to be revised in its entirety. For example, the term of the maximum prison sentences will be increased for certain offences (mainly related to terrorism), but capital punishment will not be introduced. On the other hand, it is proposed that a life sentence should be reviewed after 20 years of imprisonment.

The report of the Netherlands Antilles (CCPR/C/NET/Add.2) notes that the new draft Criminal Code is currently being submitted to the country’s advisory bodies, and it expected to become law in 2008. The revision will include scrapping the provision on the death penalty. Unlike the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles does not have an Equal Treatment (Men and Women) Act. In the Netherlands Antilles, the right to equal treatment is guaranteed, among other things, by the direct operation in our legal system of the ban on discrimination contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. According to settled case law, article 26 of the International Covenant is sufficiently precise and unconditional for courts to apply directly.

Introduction of the report

HIRSCH BALLIN, Minister of Justice of the Netherlands, introducing the report of the Netherlands, said that Dutch society was characterized by a wide range of religious ideologies, beliefs, lifestyles and value patterns. That social diversity was seen as a great good in the Netherlands, and pluralism of values was seen as an essential characteristic of the Dutch democratic State under the rule of law. The Dutch Government regarded it as being in the interest of both individual citizens and society as a whole that citizens had the freedom to develop and uphold their own values within the confines of respect for its Constitution and everyone’s fundamental rights. That was an important achievement of the modern, free and pluralistic society. It was therefore extremely important that the tensions that inevitably sometime arose from that pluralism were seen against the background of the said fundamental rights democracy and rule of law. The Dutch Government had taken a wide range of measure to act upon indifference and to promote tolerance. That would help to achieve cohesion between people.

DICK PIAR, Attorney-General of the Netherlands Antilles, introducing the report on the Netherlands Antilles, said that the constitutional restructuring of the Netherlands Antilles had been a major development in the past two decades. New referendums had been held which had supported a separate country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands for Curacao and Sint Maarten and the integration of Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius as public bodes within the Netherlands.

Regarding prison facilities, the Government of the Netherlands Antilles had been able to make some of the required improvements to the buildings of the prison facilities and detention centres. Recruitment and training of police and prison personnel had also taken place. The United States had put the Netherlands Antilles on its watch list in its trafficking in person report 2009. The Netherlands Antilles did not agree with that report, as the information was outdated. Specific legislation was not yet in place, but a number of trafficking in persons’ cases had been brought to justice.

ROBERT PIETERSZ, Attorney-General of Aruba, introducing the report of Aruba, observed that Aruba was the smallest legal entity within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, measuring no more than 181 square kilometres. When Aruba had become a separate constitutional entity within the Kingdom in 1986, it had introduced a Constitution of its own, based on the principal international human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It was important to note that a complete revision and modernization of Aruba’s Criminal Code had taken place. The new draft had now been reviewed by the Advisory Council and the aim was to have it adopted by Parliament before the end of this year. The introduction of the new Code would also completely revise and modernize juvenile criminal law. Another important development that had taken place in recent years regarded the fight against modern forms of slavery. In 2002 legislation had been passed which made human smuggling a criminal offence and further amplified the scope on human rights.

Delegation’s Oral Answers to Written Questions Put by Experts in Advance

As to counter-terrorism legislation, Mr. Ballin emphasized that the Netherlands applied a broad policy approach in combating terrorism. The prevention of terrorist attacks was of primary importance. The Netherlands had opted for a systematic incorporation of anti-terror legislation in general criminal law and in the law of criminal procedure. That incorporation in existing legislation offered the best safeguarding of the rights of suspects.

Regarding labour participation, another member of the delegation explained that, in 1995, nearly 58 out of every 100 people in the Netherlands were in paid employment. That figure had risen in 2008 to nearly 75 out of every 100 people. That meant that the Netherlands had the highest labour participation in Europe with the exception of Denmark.

Of European countries, the Netherlands took the ninth place in 2008 with regard to the influx of asylums-seekers. That year, 13,400 asylum seekers had applied for a residence permit. That was almost twice the number of applications for 2007. The main reason for that increase was caused by application from Iraqis and Somalians, for whom a categorical policy was in force. Approximately 56 per cent of the total number of applications were submitted by asylum-seekers from Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan. In 2008, 6,610 residence permits were granted to asylum-seekers. In order to make the current asylum procedure faster and more careful, a legislative proposal had been submitted to the Lower House of Parliament. According to that proposal, the accelerated procedure of 48 hours would be replaced by a general procedure of eight days. During that procedure, the asylum-seeker would be given more time for legal assistance and more focus would be put upon the continuity of legal assistance.

With regard to the Netherlands Antilles, Mr. Piar said that, although human trafficking was not yet a criminal offence under a separate article, cases of human trafficking were tackled by prosecuting for other offences such as fraud, kidnapping, people smuggling and coercion as defined in the Criminal Code. Under the Criminal Code, the selling of women and minors was an offence carrying a maximum prison sentence of five years. People smuggling was made a criminal offence in the Netherlands Antilles in 2003. Anti-trafficking efforts of the Netherlands Antilles had been intensified in 2004 when a working group was established on Curacao in 2004 and in 2007 on Sint Maarten. Various awareness-raising and capacity building projects had been carried out in cooperation with the International Organization for Migration. The Public Prosecutor’s Office had made the fight against human trafficking and people smuggling one of its policy priorities.

Concerning Aruba, Mr. Pietersz said that under Aruban law no distinction was made between suspects, regardless of the offence of which they were suspected. Aruban criminal procedure did not, in principle, permit suspects to be held for a period of two years during the preliminary judicial investigation. A suspect might be held on remand for a maximum of 146 days before being brought before the Court, and the normal period was 116 days. A worldwide crime that required attention concerned the horrendous forms of modern slavery and forced or compulsory labour. In 2006, the Aruban Parliament had approved an amendment bringing the Aruban Criminal Code and other laws into line with international treaties regarding human trafficking and smuggling.

Another ordinance on sexual offences and stalking, which expanded the criminal law protection of minors against sexual abuse, had entered into force in 2003, Mr. Pietersz said. It modernized the definition of and considerable increased the penalties for the offences of promoting sexual abuse of minors by third parties and trafficking in children. There were no concerted indications of trafficking in persons in, to or from Aruba, nor was information available that Aruba was a country of origin, transit or destination for international human trafficking. Nevertheless, Aruba was aware that there were possible risks of human trafficking in the prostitution sector and the service sector. Further study would take place in the near future and would indicate if trafficking in persons did indeed occur in the aforementioned risk sector and, if so, to what extent.

Oral Questions by Committee Members

On the integration of the Covenant into national legislation, an Expert asked if the Netherlands periodically considered withdrawing its reservations to the Covenant. Another Expert pointed out that the reason for a reservation on the provision of the Covenant on separating prisoners was unlikely not to have been de facto integrated already.

Regarding asylum, Experts asked when the new Aliens Act was expected to be put into force; whether marital violence in the country of origin were grounds for granting asylum; what the guiding principle in the decision to grant asylum was; whether female genital mutilation were grounds for asylum; whether people who claimed to face torture upon their return were covered; what the difference was between the general and the extended procedure; and what the procedure was for an undocumented alien. Experts said that an eight-day timeframe for the determination of an assessment of the grounds of asylum was far too short when the applicant’s situation was rather complex, which was often the case.

Concerning terrorism and measures to combat it, Experts were aware of the challenges Governments faced, but had a number of questions. As to detention on suspicion for up to two years, an Expert asked what level of evidence was required to detain someone on those grounds. Another Expert added that this period of time was far too long, since prosecutors needed a certain time pressure to bring a case to trial, and nobody should be detained for longer than absolutely necessary during investigation. As to the use of biometric data and wire-tapping, Experts wanted to know what was intended to happen to that kind of information and what safeguards existed. Moreover, what were the safeguards that counter-terrorism measures were not applied in other circumstances. Could those measures be used against juveniles? An Expert noted that a study on the use of racial profiling by police forces was needed urgently.

A Committee Member wondered why there were so many euthanasia cases, in some years as many as 1,800 cases or even more? And why where only doctors involved in the procedure and not judges, as that was clearly an issue of the right to life? Europe’s sensitivity to the death penalty should automatically also translate to euthanasia.

On gender matters, an Expert asked what the Government did to ensure equal pay for men and women and what measures the Government undertook to fight discrimination. Also, it was noted that female genital mutilation did not only take place in the country of origin, but also in the Diaspora community, and it was asked what measures the Government took to respond to that phenomenon. As to the legalization of prostitution, for which many had praised the Netherlands, an Expert noted that critics had said that consent was rare in that matter. The Netherlands had been strict in order to be able to regulate this industry and the Committee would like to know what success the Netherlands had had, also regarding human trafficking.

Several questions were asked concerning the Antilles: What was the situation with regard to the presence of a lawyer during police questioning? In the penitentiary system, how many complaints had there been regarding prison staff and what had been done in the concrete cases? As to conditions for detention, there were still doubts regarding hygiene and staffing levels. How was the planning for the new Constitutional status of the Antilles taking into account the protection of human rights?

Answers by the Delegation

Responding to questions, the delegation said that what the Netherlands had meant by balancing human rights was not balancing human rights against other rights, but balancing human rights against other human rights. That was the case, for example, for freedom of expression. The Netherlands shared the view that it had to work towards the full fulfillment of all human rights in the national and the international sphere. Protection of human rights was a tradition in Netherlands and a cornerstone of Dutch policy.

Asked about a lack of an non-governmental organization (NGO) presence during this review, the Netherlands said it appreciated the involvement of the NGOs in the Netherlands and ahd invited them to comment on the asylum procedure, for example. The Dutch asylum policy went beyond what the Geneva Convention stipulated. It included the protection against being sent back that went beyond the Geneva Conventions. That was also criticized in the Netherlands as the country was seen as too welcoming to those that came seeking a pure economic interest. There was a temporary protection system for all asylum seekers. There was no detention for asylum-seekers. The only situation in which that was possible was when someone was to be expelled. Those persons could be held in detention at the airport. The asylum centres had no locks on them and could not be referred to as detention centres.

The Netherlands did not like racial profiling and wanted rather to protect people. As to greater equality between men and women, the pay gap was investigated every other year and was mostly based on age difference. The Government wanted to activate 50,000 women for the labour market and coordinated its efforts with social partners. As to labour exploitation and human trafficking, a taskforce had been established. On prostitution, the legislation had been changed in order to reflect day-to-day reality. The Government was encouraging the police to protect women that were being misguided when they came to the Netherlands.

As far as pre-trial detention was concerned, the Netherlands had a very restrictive understanding of its application as compared with other European countries. It was used when there was a risk of repeated crimes. So far, there had been only very rare cases in which custody for suspicion of terrorist acts had been applied. Pre-trial detention after 90 days had to be by a public decision by a court. Eighty per cent of pre-trial detentions lasted less than 90 days. Only 8 per cent of such detentions lasted longer than 90 days, of which only 2 per cent lasted longer than 120 days. The Dutch procedure met all categories of a fair trial and had been examined by the European Court of Human Rights. Measures of additional guarantees had been established, including audio-visual recording, for example, if the person arrested was a minor.

The reconsideration of the asylum procedure was the result of a long process. It had been found that the Netherlands would rather have a longer period during which a well-founded conclusion could be made. If that were not possible, an extended procedure was used. There was access to lawyers for asylum-seekers in those procedures. In the extended procedure, medical arguments as well as new developments in the country of origin were included. That new legislation would be in accordance with international treaties and the Minister was confident to get confirmation for it by the Parliament.

Regarding the Netherlands Antilles, the delegation said that with the help of the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles had tried to improve the conditions in the prison mentioned by the Expert. Further, all of human rights treaties applicable to the Netherlands Antilles would become applicable again as the current regime of the Netherlands Antilles was dismantled.

In that connection, the delegation observed that the political reform process of the Netherlands Antilles was based on the right to self-determination. The vast majority of the inhabitants had decided to remain within the United Kingdom of the Netherlands with a high degree of autonomy.

The complaints registered in prison facilities in the Netherlands Antilles were decreasing: in 2007, there had been eight complaints regarding missing personal belongings; in 2009 there were only four cases. In 2009, there were also five cases regarding the quality food. Complaints concerning medical attention were related to access to doctors in the evening hours; in 2009 there were five such complaints. Measures regarding hygiene had been taken and a second phase would begin shortly. A fitness centre was now ready for use and other infrastructural changes had been undertaken as well. There was still a long way to go to achieve the goals set and the Netherlands Antilles had not hesitated to seek the help of the Netherlands.

It was possible under Dutch law to apply juvenile law to persons considered as adults and vice versa. The Netherlands regarded that as a big advantage of the system. However, the Netherlands was ready to reconsider that position if the Committee deemed it necessary.

As to asylum legislation, domestic violence was a reason for asylum, as it was often linked to honour crimes. Female genital mutilation could also lead to a residence permit. If there was no region in the country of origin to which the person could return without becoming a social outlaw, asylum could be and had been granted on those grounds. There were also many undocumented aliens that applied for asylum.

Concerning biometric passports, the Netherlands thought that it gave the best guarantees of adequate protection if the data was stored in one place. High standards of protection were applied and even the public prosecutor could not access the database without explicit permission. Regarding wiretapping, it was decided that phone lines of lawyers were exempt from these measures. At first sight the number of wiretaps was high, which was due to the high standards attributed to evidence used in courts. The Dutch police had no powers themselves but acted under the Public Prosecutor. Each planned wiretap was assessed individually and needed the Interior Minister’s permission.

Regarding euthanasia, the delegation said only Belgium and Luxembourg had comparable legislation. The Netherlands rejected every motive that had to do with the lack of medical care. Requests for euthanasia were examined by an independent committee, which had three members: a member of a medical profession, a specialist in ethics and a member from the legal sphere. A judge would only be involved if legal measures were recommended by the decision of that committee.

The fight against domestic violence, human trafficking, and female genital mutilation were priorities for law enforcement. An intensified approach was needed, as it was likely that many cases were not detected. As to the death penalty, the Netherlands was fully aware of the debate in the international sphere. It was completely out of question that the death penalty would be applied in the Netherlands.

Concerning the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (which requires States to establish a system of regular visits to places of detention, and to establish an associated national preventive mechanism), the Netherlands had expressed its wish to start the approval process. It was also a common wish to establish a national human rights institution. Meanwhile, it had been decided that a national institute for human rights would be set up.

Further Questions by Committee Experts

In a second round of questions and comments, Experts expressed surprise that the presence of lawyers during police interrogations was not mandatory in every case. It was also a matter of concern that lawyers were not able to interrupt police interrogations. The moment a defendant said that he wanted to speak to a lawyer police interrogation had to stop. That should especially be the case in countries that were at the vanguard of justice. Another Expert wanted to know more about corporal punishment, which was banned in the Netherlands, but not in the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba. Experts asked for further information about the review procedure for euthanasia requests; pre-trial detention statistics; and labour exploitation.

Regarding the asylum procedure, Experts asked about the non-acceptance of forensic evidence of torture in the asylum procedure. As to detention of asylum-seekers, an Expert said that NGO information suggested that that might happen because persons did not claim asylum from the beginning and were considered illegal immigrants.

Answers by the Delegation

Responding to these and other questions, the delegation said that the Netherlands had broadened and intensified the communication with lawyers in the early stages of investigation. Recently, the police had been asked to allow access to lawyers. Special attention was given to juvenile suspects.

Regarding the asylum procedure, so-called “undesirable” aliens would not be sent back if they could not safely return to their country of origin. The term “undesirable” might be a bad translation and was in no way meant in personal terms, since it was rather a legal category. New legislation had been submitted to Parliament last week that would ensure that asylum-seekers would not have to wait for too long and duplication in procedure was avoided. The assertion that new facts would be left out of the procedure was not true any more, as the procedure had been changed already.

Regarding the Netherlands Antilles, the delegation said that an external review of the prison facilities had taken place earlier this year. NGOs could also review the Netherlands Antilles’ detention facilities. Corporal punishment was a crime in the Netherlands Antilles. As to the complaints against police officers, the delegation said that there was a special unit taking care of those complaints and investigating them. Audio-visual surveillance was only possible with explicit permission of the public prosecutor.

As to the protection of minorities in the Netherlands, the most recent annual integration report showed that there had been progress. The Netherlands was concerned about the impact of the present economic crisis on employment for minorities and the not so young, and paid special attention to those groups.

In the Netherlands Antilles, the great majority of minors were not brought to court but were under Government supervision. The new Criminal Code would propose a complete overhaul of juvenile law. Pre-trial detention was kept to a minimum and the aim was to release detainees after 10 days. A reporting centre for child abuse had also been set up. Concerning the participation of women, the Netherlands Antilles was the only entity in the Kingdom of the Netherlands that had had five female Prime Ministers so far.

For Aruba, the delegation explained regarding juvenile detainees that a young person aged 12 to 18 might be detained only if no other appropriate sanctions were available. Detention might thus be imposed only as a last resort. Alternatives to detention were increasingly being used for children who came into contact with the law. Almost 80 per cent of the cases involving juvenile offenders were now dealt with by alternative means, like community service. Aruba’s prison had recently undergone alterations, during which the entire youth wing had been refurbished and enlarged to provide 36 places for young offenders in pre-trial detention. Juvenile inmates were offered the opportunity to complete school through independent study.

Concerning violence against women in Aruba, the delegation explained that there were general statutory provisions in the Aruban Criminal Code covering violence against both men and women. In the new Criminal Code pre-trial detention might be imposed for all forms of domestic violence. With regard to the protection of children, an ordinance had entered into force that considerably extended the period in which a complaint of sexual offence could be lodged, so that long after they reached the age of majority minors could lodge a complaint of sexual offences committed against them.

Further Questions of the Committee

In a third round of questions and comments, Experts raised a number of issues, including the statistics on juveniles detained during the past few years; the conditions for family reunification for asylum-seekers; problems in the reporting of child abuse; the lack of access to health insurance for undocumented children; and the importance of human rights education.

What were the concrete measures to protect victims of domestic violence, such as shelters or phone lines? How was the Netherlands intending to increase the number of women in Government and in the private sector? In particular, an Expert was concerned about a case in which a political party had prohibited women from participating in certain activities, which was discrimination.

Regarding religious symbols and headscarves, an Expert noted that the explanation that schools could prohibit the wearing of scarves for security reasons – such as fire hazards – was rather problematic as it was overbroad and could apply to other articles of clothing, such as men’s ties. The Expert also suggested that a rule could be established that in the case of expression of racial hatred during sport games that the game stopped in such as case. Also, it was difficult to understand that municipalities were allowed to prohibit housing for persons who after several years did not reach a certain income level. Further, how could one reconcile combating incitement to hatred with a continued reservation on the relevant article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?

Answers by the Delegation

Regarding anti-discrimination legislation, the delegation explained that dialogue was an important part of its policy plan. It was important to act against incitement of hatred or discrimination, which undermined society. The application of criminal law in such cases was being studied. As to youth criminality, prevention played an important role. As to safety in youth institutions, a personal approach and safety measures had been improved. The delegation stressed that deprivation of liberty was avoided, and multi-systematic therapy was used.

As to the small political party that prohibited women from participating in it, the delegation said that it was a very small party which had only 2 seats out of 150 in the National Parliament. In general, the participation of women was encouraged in the Government, the judiciary and also in the private sector. . Women’s participation was promoted actively by looking specifically for female candidates for Government positions.

Concerning headscarves and religious symbols, the delegation said that it was an intensely debated issue. A very small number of women had worn burqas to school. The small number and the intensity of the debate were not in an adequate relation to each other. It was a difficulty in real life to interact with someone who had a fully covered face. Of course the Netherlands bore in mind the importance of freedom of religion.

As to the asylum procedure, the delegation said that there was a very high risk of an influx of asylum-seekers due to family reunification. The Netherlands had to be realistic about the abuse of its system as it was often confronted with children that had no DNA in common with their so-called parents or were presented as adopted children. The assertion that undocumented minors did not benefit from the same services as legal residents was not correct. People to which the asylum process was applied were considered as staying legally in the country. Nobody was denied essential health care.

The delegation emphasized that human rights education was important and further information would be provided in writing. Raising the awareness of human rights should be a hallmark of Dutch efforts, including in the fight against human trafficking or child abuse.

Regarding the suggestion that football games should be stopped when groups in the public shouted anti-Semitic slogans, the delegation said that that had already been implemented and was part of the rules for referees. Concerning the situation in the Netherlands Antilles, the delegation clarified that discrimination was a criminal offence under the Criminal Code. No life imprisonment was possible for minors and it was only under some circumstances that adult law could be applied for juveniles.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CT09004E