Experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Commend Cameroon’s Acceptance of Refugees, Ask about Bilingualism, Indigenous Peoples and Birth Registration
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today concluded its consideration of the combined twenty-second and twenty-third periodic report of Cameroon, with Committee Experts commending Cameroon’s acceptance of refugees and raising questions about bilingualism, indigenous peoples and birth registration.
Stamatia Stavrinaki, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Cameroon, welcomed that Cameroon had accepted a large number of refugees, and commended efforts to integrate them. Noting that the State had also forcibly returned refugees, including women and children, she asked what measures were in place to protect the rights of refugees and migrants?
A Committee Expert asked about mechanisms that could be used to address the imbalances of languages in Cameroon and the functions of the National Commission on the Promotion of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism. Had the Commission mediated between the Anglophone and Francophone communities in the country?
Ms. Stavrinaki asked what measures had been taken to ensure the proper protection of indigenous and minority groups? She noted that the Ministry for Basic Education had estimated that as of 2019, around two million people, including 400,000 school students, had not had their births registered. She asked whether the State party envisaged making public registration procedures free of charge. Would it provide free identity papers?
Salomon Eheth, Permanent Representative of Cameroon to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, introducing the report, said that the period covered by the report under consideration, 2012-2016, coincided with the start of the security crises in Cameroon, including the terrorist crisis imposed by the Boko Haram group since 2013 in the country’s northern regions, and the secessionist crisis born of sectional demands in the north-west and south-west regions since 2016. While these crises had considerably disrupted economic and social activities, the Government of Cameroon had carried out multiple activities aimed at restoring peace and security, and continued to implement the provisions of the Convention, as well as the Committee’s recommendations.
Mr. Eheth said that Cameroonian legislation granted refugees the same rights as nationals, and prohibited discrimination based on race, gender, religion and nationality. He noted that progress had been made in mediating between the linguistic communities, including through the Grand National Dialogue in 2019, a historic meeting which examined ways to achieve a lasting solution to the divide between the north-west and south-west regions. The meeting subsequently led to the adoption of a law promoting official languages in Cameroon and a law enshrining the special status of the regions and outlining a framework for the greater participation of local populations in public affairs.
The delegation said that studies to define indigenous peoples and minority groups were underway. While awaiting the outcome of these studies, the Constitution protected the rights of minorities. Cameroon had reformed legal institutions and frameworks regarding birth registration. In 2013, a body responsible for overseeing the national registration office had been established. The body held awareness-raising campaigns regarding identity registration and training workshops. There was also a project to digitise the birth registration process.
In concluding remarks, Ms. Stavrinaki said the security situation had seriously deteriorated in the north due to attacks by Boko Haram, but there were also murderous attacks in the English-speaking region that had compelled over 10 million people to leave their homes. Non-separatist members of that region had been affected by anti-terrorist measures. She called on the State party to provide free access to birth registration for all as a high priority to improve the protection of indigenous peoples and minorities. The rights of these people could only be ensured by vigorously combatting prejudice and intolerance.
In his concluding remarks, Mr. Eheth said that the dialogue had been an edifying experience, and would contribute to strengthening human rights, solidifying the rule of law, and promoting fundamental freedoms in Cameroon. Cameroon would carefully consider the Committee’s recommendations, and incorporate them in domestic law. The dialogue and the Committee’s recommendations would help to make Cameroon a State in which all could be treated equally and enjoy their human rights.
Verene Albertha Shepherd, Committee Chair, thanked the delegation for its replies, thanked the Country Rapporteurs for leading the dialogue, and thanked all Committee members for their questions.
At the beginning of the consideration of the report of Cameroon, Mazalo Tebi, newly elected Committee Member, made her solemn declaration.
The delegation of Cameroon consisted of representatives from the Permanent Mission of Cameroon to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Cameroon after it concludes its one hundred and sixth session on 29 April. Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Committee’s one hundred and sixth session and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Tuesday, 19 April at 3 p.m. to start its consideration of the combined eighteenth to twentieth periodic report of Luxembourg (CERD/C/LUX/18-20)
Report
The Committee has before it the combined twenty-second and twenty–third periodic report of Cameroon (CERD/C/CMR/22-23)
Presentation of Report
SALOMON EHETH, Permanent Representative of Cameroon to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, said that the period covered by the report under consideration, 2012-2016, coincided with the start of the security crises in Cameroon, including the terrorist crisis imposed by the Boko Haram group since 2013 in the country’s northern regions, and the secessionist crisis born of sectional demands in the north-west and south-west regions since 2016. While these crises had considerably disrupted economic and social activities, the Government of Cameroon had carried out multiple activities aimed at restoring peace and security, and continued to implement the provisions of the Convention, as well as the Committee’s recommendations.
At the strategic level, Cameroon had adopted the National Development Strategy 2020-2030, which strengthened the rule of law and personal security and included concrete activities such as the reduction of arms trafficking, the fight against cyber-terrorism, the prevention of indoctrination and recruitment of young people in terrorist activities, and the supervision of the activities of vigilance committees. At the normative level, Cameroon had ratified important legal instruments, including the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, among others, as well as international instruments. Reforms carried out on the Penal Code allowed discrimination to be criminalised more strictly, including hate speech and insult to ethnicity.
Mr. Eheth said the concern to combat discrimination was reflected in all areas of Government action in Cameroon. The inclusive development of territories aimed to consolidate the unity of the nation, promote solidarity between citizens, and strengthen the integration of Cameroon’s 250 ethnic groups. In education, free public primary education was established, and priority education zones were created, as well as an inclusive education system, with the support of technical and financial partners. In the electoral field, Cameroon opted for the principle of universal suffrage, allowing all citizens who fulfilled the required conditions to participate in the elections as candidates or voters. Cameroonian legislation granted refugees the same rights as nationals, and prohibited discrimination based on race, gender, religion and nationality.
Mr. Eheth said progress had been made after the period covered by the report, including the organization of the Grand National Dialogue in 2019, a historic meeting which examined ways to achieve a lasting solution to the crisis in the north-west and south-west regions. The meeting subsequently led to the adoption of a law promoting official languages in Cameroon and a law enshrining the special status of the regions and outlining a framework for the greater participation of local populations in public affairs. Other institutions were also created, including the Human Rights Commission of Cameroon. Vulnerable groups were at the heart of reforms, including the land and state reform which aimed to better ensure the rights of rural and indigenous people to land.
The Government of Cameroon had adopted an economic and social resilience and response strategy to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was continually adjusted according to the evolution of the pandemic. Actions included the recommendation to the population to observe the hygiene and distancing measures recommended by the World Health Organization, the creation of a national solidarity fund for the fight against the coronavirus, the creation of specialised care centres in all regional capitals, and the organization of free awareness raising, screening and vaccination campaigns. These measures had enabled the Government to control the pandemic on its territory and limit the number of deaths. Mr. Eheth concluded by saying that the State faced many challenges which would be highlighted throughout the exchange, including the security crisis.
Questions by Committee Experts
STAMATIA STAVRINAKI, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Cameroon, welcomed the delegation and said this was the seventh time since 1977 that Cameroon had appeared before the Committee. She noted that Cameroon did not consider race and ethnicity as criteria during census activities. Could information about the status of the census be provided? How did the State party use the indicators in the census? What tools were being used by the State party to have more detailed information about problems in the communities? Were there updated statistics on migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and displaced persons within the country? Could more information on criminal legislation and all criminal proceedings related to hate crimes be provided? Did national legislation expressly prohibit racial discrimination in terms of human rights? Had the State party taken measures to allow for the identification of cases of intersectional discrimination?
What measures were being taken to gather data regarding complaints of racial discrimination, Ms. Stavrinaki asked? Could the State provide specific information about press articles spreading ideas of racial superiority and discrimination? Could the State party present information on hate crimes? Could clarification be provided on the implementation of the law on cyber security? Did current legislation provide a role for civil society organizations and human rights defenders? Could it be said that civil society participated in the implementation of the Convention? How could the State party encourage civil society organizations to help in the implementation of the Convention?
BAKARI DIABY, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, asked for information on the new National Human Rights Commission, established in 2019. What progress had been seen? Had the Commission already submitted a request for accreditation according to the Paris Principles? Had awareness-raising campaigns been launched and how many if so? Were the police involved in the dissemination of these campaigns? Where and in what part of the education system were pedological guides distributed? Why had the 10 regional sections of the Human Rights Commission not been established? How much progress had been made under the new structure? Had more complaints been considered?
Mr. Diaby asked for more information on measures which had been taken to assess the mandate of the Commission, with a view to improving its role. How many times had the National Action Plan been assessed? What goals were attained, and what other goals were not reached? What were the outcomes of the National Action Plan for the protection of human rights? Did the State take measures to assess its impact? Could information on the status of the new human rights plan be provided? The Committee had been informed of the death of a journalist, and Mr,. Diaby asked if investigations into his death were carried out and whether perpetrators were identified.
GUN KUT, Committee Expert and Follow-up Rapporteur, reminded the State party that the Committee attached great importance to the procedural follow-up. It was the practice of the Committee to remind the State party that there were issues which the Committee thought could be acted upon in a short amount of time to provide solutions. Follow-up issues taken up by the Committee in 2014 included issues relating to special measures, issues on participation in political and public life, and issues relating to refugees and asylum seekers.
A Committee Expert noted that there were apparently 600 guides or handbooks which had been distributed by the National Human Rights Institution. For what purposes were these guides distributed? Was it for educational purposes? Should distribution be a wider process?
Another Committee Expert asked about the functions of the National Commission on the Promotion of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism. Had the Commission mediated between the Anglophone and Francophone speaking communities in the country?
One Committee Expert said the Committee was pleased that Cameroon regularly submitted their reports, describing this as noteworthy and remarkable. The Committee Expert personally endorsed the statement made by Ambassador of Cameroon. It needed to be noted that terrorism was an issue, not just in the whole world, but notably in Africa. Why had certain areas in Cameroon not had the right to self-determination?
A Committee Expert addressed a comment on bilingualism, asking what mechanisms could be used to address the imbalances of languages, which were outlined in the Constitution? Constitutionally speaking, what could be done to address the linguistic imbalance?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that Cameroon was a multi-ethnic country, with over 250 official ethnicities. The fourth census produced information which was made available by the National Office of Statistics; unfortunately, the delegation did not have this data. The policies that were implemented by the Government underscored non-discrimination of all ethnicities on all levels – all ethnicities were equal. There was no ethnicity-based discrimination or language-based discrimination. The fourth census included a national language indicator. The results provided some clarification.
Cameroon was a country of transit, with over 30 million people residing in the national territory. In all areas of State participation, there was not a single discriminatory measure. Cameroon had over 450,000 refugees living in the country’s territory. Cameroon was a stable country for a long time, but recently had been experiencing violence. It was a country which had assisted in the stabilisation of the region. Historically, Cameroon had been split into two parts in 1916 after the German protectorate left, one in French Africa, and the second part bordering Nigeria. In 1961, the two parts had unified. Since the independence, Cameroon had become a country with two equal official languages – English and French. Bilingualism was official in Cameroon – every official document was in English and French. Bilingualism was dynamic in the country, with children learning both languages from elementary school. There was an effort to work towards bilingualism, which was advantageous for Cameroon.
The delegation said that Cameroon was a developing country and a young country, meaning that the labour market faced an unemployment problem. Discrimination at that level did not exist in writing, however, there could be discrimination that was part of human behaviour, such as preferring a national candidate over someone from outside the country, to protect the national domestic market. The delegation said that there was not a lot of data on discrimination from the police or the courts – the data was weak. There was a very small percentage of racial hatred and tribal hatred, which existed in all countries. Civil society was quite active and human rights defenders were known and professional. A terrorist had been detained for sending information to the Boko Haram group. Terrorism was foreign to the country, but it had represented an ongoing issue for over 10 years. The delegation said the Convention was important and would contribute to the protection of human rights. Civil society fully played its role, it was free and there were many associations.
The National Human Rights Commission promoted and protected human rights. Many factors guaranteed its independence. Members were appointed but they carried out their work in complete independence. There were several instruments that guaranteed that its members were free to carry out their duties. The Commission had financial autonomy. As Cameroon was a developing country, the budget was not enormous, however, the Commission disseminated information about the Convention; carried out events and activities on commemorative days; and ensured human rights training in educational centres. The 600 guides or handbooks were part of a pilot project by the Commission and were distributed in elementary and secondary schools and in universities. The Commission provided a free phone hotline so that there were further ways of referring issues to it. There were 15 permanent members of the Commission, which was a guarantee of the Commission’s independence.
The delegation said that the National Commission on Bilingualism and Multiculturalism promoted bilingualism and multiculturalism and it had financial autonomy and an autonomous legal status. The aim of this Commission was to preserve peace and consolidate national unity and the practice of living together in harmony. Cameroon was a multi-cultural country and a country of immigration. English and French were imported languages which had created problems; a quarter of the population spoke French because of colonisation, with the newer generation speaking English, making it the more dominant generation. Spot checks were done at schools and in courts to make sure that they were both carried out in English and French. Bilingualism was a reality, and it was important to ensure there were no discrimination on the grounds of language. The National Commission on Bilingualism and Multiculturalism was important and would help to truly build the country.
The National Development Strategy lay at the heart of the Sustainable Development Goals. Cameroon was suffering from difficult times, including from COVID. Cameroon was committed to fulfilling its reporting obligations. In its legislation, Cameroon was very focused on protecting indigenous people. They enjoyed good protection, including through the legislative framework. Cameroon and its Constitution had made provisions for legal and institutional measures to ensure the protection of indigenous people and all minorities.
Cameroon had specific institutions for the protection of persons with disabilities. The State also made the protection of the elderly a priority, as they were held in high esteem in Cameroon. Elderly persons were not put in institutions but were kept within the family. Within the continent of Africa, there was still the issue of terrorism, however, there were more appropriate bodies which could comment on self-determination. The delegation said that there were efforts to introduce both English and French in the education programmes, from elementary schools through to universities, to help balance the equilibrium.
Questions by a Committee Expert
STAMATIA STAVRINAKI, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Cameroon, asked for further clarification on the topic of racial discrimination. How did society understand the concept of racial discrimination and how did it apply the law and the Convention? What had the authorities done to try and promote this law against contempt and hatred, and to inform potential victims on protective measures?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that the inexistence of complaints did not mean the inexistence of discrimination. The State proceeded through prevention, which came through education. It was here that civil society played an important role, as they provided support. The law was the same for everyone in Cameroon – there was no discrimination on grounds of race and ethnicity.
Questions by a Committee Expert
BAKARI DIABY, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said Cameroon’s National Human Rights Commission needed further resources to exercise its mandate. Was something being done to ensure that the Commission had the resources that it needed? When could full coverage be expected? Was the Commission authorised to receive individual complaints? Did the Commission have the authority and ability to translate documents into English? He welcomed the adoption of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. Perhaps civil society could assist with a law defining human rights defenders? What were the gains and the achievements of the National Action Plan for Human Rights? Were there any investigations into violations? If so, what was the outcome?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that violations were rare and any time they did happen, the perpetrators were brought to justice. There was legislation which needed to be strengthened and a framework which needed to be built for human rights defenders. The delegation asked the Committee to support Cameroon in the implementation of such legislation. It was not the duty of the Commission to translate. The country had faced difficulties, and this meant funds could not always be secured, which could be the case of the Commission.
Questions by Committee Experts
GUN KUT, Committee Expert and Follow-up Rapporteur, said the interim report had been due in 2015, meaning COVID had nothing to do with its delay. This was based on a request about a select number of issues, where the State party was expected to report back in one year. This was okay, but the Committee would be expecting the same timing this time around. What was the fate of the National Solidarity Report, which encouraged the State party to implement special measures? What had been the outcome of the study on indigenous peoples? How did this answer the proposals for special measures? Could more information be provided about the study and the bill on indigenous peoples and their rights?
STAMATIA STAVRINAKI, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Cameroon, said that the United Nations definition of human rights defenders included that they defended people against racial discrimination, peacefully. What was the delegation’s reaction to that definition? Were measures being taken by authorities to promote the protection of women in ethnic groups?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said there was no objection to the definition of human rights defenders, with the stress being put on peacefully. Cameroon was committed to continuing what it had started and the delegation was ready at any time to explain what the country was doing.
Questions by Committee Experts
STAMATIA STAVRINAKI, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Cameroon, said that according to the State party’s report, a study was being carried out to identify indigenous minorities. How far had this study progressed and what had been done to include relevant stakeholders? What measures were in place to ensure confidence and trust between the communities. There were problems with trust between the Anglophone and other communities. What had been done to re-establish trust between the communities? The Expert asked for more information on the national dialogue between the communities.
What measures had been taken to ensure the proper protection of indigenous and minority groups?
Birth registration was very important, as without it, individuals did not exist in the eyes of the State. The Ministry for Basic Education estimated that as of 2019, two million people, including 400,000 students, had not had their births registered. Did the State party envisage making public registration procedures free of charge? Would it provide free identity papers?
Ms. Stavrinaki was concerned about the large number of internally displaced persons. What measures were being taken to avoid internal displacements, and ensure access and availability of public services for internally displaced persons? What support was being provided to assist internally displaced persons to return to their regions of origin?
Information received by the Committee indicated that there had been violence that had led to deaths and enforced disappearances, as well as arrests of persons from minority groups, in response to allegations of terrorism. How many people had been arrested and sentenced for terrorism-related offenses, and what was the breakdown of their ethnicity? The 2014 Anti-Terrorism Law required that detainees be judged in French by a military court, and provided for the death penalty for non-violent acts. The report suggested that certain Anglophones were required to draft their own appeals in French, even when they did not speak the language well. In 2015, 133 death sentences had been delivered in the north of the State. In 2016, 160 had been delivered by military courts. Many were on charges of terrorist offences. What measures were being taken to ensure the right of people to a fair trial, and to protect the rights of the accused?
What measures were being taken to ensure that survivors of sexual violence were given the support that they needed?
Ms. Stavrinaki also asked for more information on the human rights-based approach to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in Cameroon. What revisions were underway for the Labour Code? Were steps being taken to ensure equal opportunity to work and equal pay for equal work? Women were underrepresented at the administrative and political levels. What measures were in place to support the employment of women in these fields? There were cases of forced labour in the north of Cameroon. What measures were in place to prevent forced labour and prosecute those responsible?
What measures were in place to ensure that indigenous peoples had access to education? Ms. Stavrinaki asked for statistics on students in each region, and steps taken to strengthen language policies.
There had been attacks against health care centres and staff that had impacted the availability of health care services. What measures had been taken to protect health care facilities?
What measures had been taken to ensure that the response to the pandemic benefited everyone without discrimination?
What steps had been taken to ensure the participation of indigenous peoples and minority groups in elections and in Parliament? Was the State party ensuring that indigenous peoples had access to justice in remote areas?
The Expert commended Cameroon for welcoming many refugees and migrants. However, the State had also forcibly returned refugees, including women and children. What measures were in place to protect the rights of refugees and migrants?
Finally, Ms. Stavrinaki asked the delegation to explain its understanding of “assimilation”. Given the absence of data on refugees and migrants, it was difficult to understand the impact of efforts to integrate these groups. The Expert asked for more information on this.
BAKARI DIABY, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, noted that there was ongoing reform of the land system in cooperation with indigenous peoples. The Expert commended the State for recognising indigenous peoples in the Constitution and for ratifying related international conventions. However, conflict continued to threaten indigenous peoples. What was the State doing to protect these peoples? What was the State doing to protect the movement of livestock and the land of indigenous peoples? Indigenous peoples were often abducted, held for ransom, or murdered. These peoples were also pitted against multinational corporations aiming to overtake their land. What was being done to protect indigenous peoples’ land from these groups? The Expert asked for more information on the aid provided by the State for these people in legal procedures. When homes were destroyed, indigenous peoples often lost papers needed to prove their identity. What was the number of stateless indigenous people? How did the land registry procedure respect the customs of indigenous peoples?
Had the State party taken measures to fight against racial prejudice in education? Mr. Diaby asked for more information on the representation of different races in school textbooks. How many magistrates had been trained in the Convention?
Were there regulating bodies investigating racial discrimination on social media? Were different communities given equal time on broadcast media? What was being done to ensure racial equality in the content of mass media?
Another Committee Expert asked how national law was mediated with customary local law. Was the national law implemented in all regions?
The Expert said that many indigenous peoples were being forced to leave their forest homes due to deforestation. What was being done to support those affected?
A Committee Expert said that it would be desirable to establish an international definition of indigenous peoples. The marginalisation and stigmatisation of these peoples needed to be considered. The principle of self-identification could be useful for these groups. Did the State party intend to use self-identification? The term “pygmy” was considered derogative, and the Expert called on the State to not use the term.
One Committee Expert asked whether the recommendations of the Ad-hoc Ministerial Committee appointed to examine the concerns of the English-speaking teachers’ union had been implemented? The Expert also noted disfunctions in the administration of justice in the English-speaking community, and noted that an Ad-hoc Committee had been appointed to investigate these allegations. Had the recommendations of this Committee been implemented?
A Committee Expert said that there was an accelerated democratisation in several countries, including Cameroon, which they were not ready for. There was thus a need to bridge gaps between laws and implementation of these laws in these States, and to support human rights commissions. Human rights defenders benefited from the support of other States and international bodies, but the Expert called for further support to bridge the gap between these people and local communities.
Another Expert addressed the death of Samuel Wazizi. The delegation had stated that this person was a terrorist rather than a human rights defender. The Expert said that this person had died in detention, and his death had not been reported until nine months after his death. Which body had overseen the investigation of his death? Why had the body not yet been returned?
One Committee Expert expressed concern about the Government’s efforts to define groups within indigenous and minority societies, and human rights workers. Such a lack of recognition could lead to deprivation of basic human rights, including freedom of speech and self-determination. International law had been quite careful to not make strict definitions of minority groups. The Expert called on the State party to look closely at relevant international instruments on the rights of minorities before making determinations.
What mechanisms were in place to take on the recommendations of the Committee and ensure that they were implemented? Was there a mechanism to implement the recommendations?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that the Committee’s questions would help to strengthen human rights in Cameroon. Studies to define indigenous peoples and minority groups were underway. While awaiting the outcome of these studies, the Constitution protected the rights of minorities. Many Ministries had identified certain categories of minorities based on international standards. The term “pygmy” represented a minority group and was not a derogatory term.
The inclusive development of territories was part of the State’s Town and Country Planning initiative. Cameroon was working at the grassroots level to protect minorities. National law also provided protections for vulnerable populations, including access to social services and employment. The Ministries of Health, Forestry, Vocational Training, and other public authorities were providing information to indigenous groups on their rights and remedies available in the case of violation of those rights. Community radio was used at the local level, with more than 100 stations across the State. A national policy for protection of vulnerable groups had been enacted in 2017. The State was working to ensure that vulnerable people could participate in public life and elections.
The Government had taken many measures to ensure access to education for all communities, including indigenous peoples. People could freely choose to attend English or French speaking educational facilities. Bilingual schools also existed. The State was building a new educational infrastructure, and provided free primary education. The State had invested 97 million euros in these projects. The State had also taken measures to guarantee access of persons with disabilities to education.
Cameroon had established institutions to ensure access to justice for all, and had ratified related international treaties. Under Cameroonian law, legal assistance was provided freely. All people had the right to a fair trial in their native language, and when a language was not spoken, interpreters were provided. Social action services provided protection to defendants, supporting them in building their dossiers and providing health care services. Customary law existed, but it stopped at the local level, and national law always applied in all cases. Measures had been taken to allow people from English-speaking communities to have access to trials under common law.
Efforts were being made to catch up with modern times, and authorities were doing everything possible to ensure fair trials and progressively achieve peace. Ninety-five per cent of the situation in the north-west and south-west of the country had been normalised. Incidences of violence occasionally occurred, but these were isolated. The State had not harmed the civilian population.
Cameroon had reformed legal institutions and frameworks regarding birth registration. In 2013, a body responsible for overseeing the national registration office had been established. Cameroon had over 250 ethnicities, and was working to secure Cameroonian nationality for all. The body held awareness-raising campaigns regarding identity registration and training workshops. There was also a project to digitise the birth registration process. The growth of the population had led to challenges regarding birth registration. Around 370,000 national identity documents had been distributed as of 2022.
Cameroon did not consider race and ethnicity in its census, but the fourth national census did include questions about language and migration. The security situation in West Africa had led to a massive influx of refugees into Cameroon. There were internally displaced persons in all regions of the State, with the most in the north-west and south-west. Resettlement of these people was underway, with the assistance of a fund dedicated to this aim.
On terrorism, the delegation stated that Cameroon faced security problems in the north-west and south-west regions. Attacks on the population in these areas had been carried out, and misinformation had been spread on social media. Terrorism was jeopardising the safety of the State, so the Government was taking measures to restore peace and prevent terrorism. For example, it worked to combat impunity in terrorism cases through judiciary investigations. Cases of recent terrorist attacks had been overseen by military courts.
On the case of Samuel Wazizi, the delegation stated that although he was a journalist, he had been identified as a terrorist. Separatists who decided to pick up arms were identified as terrorists, and Mr. Wazizi was one such person. He had undertaken training in weapons and explosives, and had aided and abetted terrorist attacks. Mr. Wazizi had been sent to a hospital due to illness, and this was where he had died. The delegation said that rather than the case of Mr. Wazizi, the Committee should focus on terror attacks, where school children and teachers had been murdered by terrorists, and other horrific terrorist attacks had recently taken place. The delegation called on the international community to raise its voice against such attacks to trim the sails of the separatists. The Government would not, however, take up arms against its own people.
The State condemned sexual violence, and perpetrators were severely punished. The death penalty did exist, but it was not applied. It was used as a deterrent against serious crimes. The delegation refuted the Committee’s claim that there were 220 people who had been given the death penalty.
The National Strategy for Development toward 2030 was focused on achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The State had made adjustments to achieve these goals.
There was no discrimination in the work force. The State aimed to protect the domestic labour market while adhering to international standards.
There was no discrimination of women at the higher education level, and both genders had equal access to public administration positions through competitive examinations. Measures had been put in place to increase the number of women in the National Assembly, the Army, civil engineering departments, as well as mining and agricultural sectors. There had also been awareness raising campaigns to inform women about their right to vote, and this had led to an increase in the number of women represented in parliament. In 2020, 53 per cent of members of public administration were men and 47 per cent were women, approaching gender parity.
The COVID-19 pandemic had had an impact on human rights, but the State had taken all measures to prevent its spread. Less than 10 per cent of the population was vaccinated, but masks had been distributed throughout the State and in refugee camps.
The delegation shared the Committee’s views on the difference between “assimilation” and “integration”.
There were no evictions of indigenous peoples from land, but there were conflicts that arose when animals belonging to indigenous peoples strayed into crop land. The State was implementing measures to address these conflicts at the regulatory and administrative levels.
A regional conference on refugees would be held next week. Regulatory provisions to support stateless persons and to provide these persons with identity papers were in place. There was deforestation, but the rights of the people affected were guaranteed.
There were special measures for indigenous peoples in education, with frames of reference for “pygmy” peoples and other groups.
The recommendations of this and other Committees were taken on board by State institutions, including a special body within the Ministry of Justice, and these bodies worked on implementing these recommendations.
Questions by Committee Experts
STAMATIA STAVRINAKI, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Cameroon, recognised the responsibility of the State to protect its citizens against terrorism and violence, but cited an incident where public military officials had killed indigenous citizens and burned houses to hide evidence of the incident. She said that the State had a responsibility to investigate and prevent such incidents. While there was no definition of indigenous peoples in international law, there were specific criteria that had been established to allow for the identification of these peoples. Ms. Stavrinaki called on the State to collect data based on these criteria.
Was the State ensuring that children in all regions had access to entry exams so that all groups had equal access to education?
BAKARI DIABY, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, thanked the delegation for the answers given, and for the implementation of special jurisdictions of military courts. The State had a responsibility to protect citizens, and the Rome Statute provided States with a framework and standards for prosecuting war leaders and separatists.
How many people were at risk of statelessness in Cameroon, Mr. Diaby asked? He called on the State party to ratify the conventions on statelessness.
Would it be possible for internally displaced people, especially children, to obtain identity documents regardless of their place of birth?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation noted that the High Commissioner for Human Rights and her team had assisted in regularising the situation in Cameroon and thanked her.
The right to an education was sacred in Cameroon, and stateless people also had that right. It was hard to estimate the number of stateless persons in Cameroon. However, the State provided appropriate care for stateless persons.
During crises, there were provisions in place to register the birth of children, including registration at diplomatic missions.
Comment by a Committee Expert
A Committee Expert said that two States had drafted legislation on human rights defenders, and called on Cameroon to follow suit and legally define what a human rights defender was.
Response by the Delegation
The delegation said that Cameroon was a developing society, and its National Assembly had voted on enhancing protections of human rights defenders. The delegation agreed that legislation on human rights defenders needed to be robust and free of gaps, and the framing of human rights defenders within legislation was important.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert said that problems emerged when citizens did not respect common law. The goal of the State was to stabilise tensions. Occasionally, terrorist groups had financial support from large State-like organizations. States needed to disengage from supporting certain groups.
Another Committee Expert said that citizens who had assimilated were distanced from their roots. Assimilation had been used by the colonial movements, but it had caused great harm. What was the State party’s understanding of assimilation?
Another Committee Expert expressed concern regarding discussions on who was and who was not a human rights defender. If one did not assimilate, was that person then considered to be a separatist or a terrorist?
Concluding Remarks
STAMATIA STAVRINAKI, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Cameroon, thanked the delegation for its participation in the dialogue and for its answers, while expressing regret that persons directly responsible for implementing the Convention domestically were not members of the delegation. Since the dialogue on previous reports held in 2014, important events had taken place in Cameroon. The security situation had seriously deteriorated in the north due to attacks by Boko Haram, but there were also murderous attacks in the English-speaking region that had compelled over 10 million people to leave their homes. Non-separatist members of that region had been affected by anti-terrorist measures. Ms. Stavrinaki called for investigations into these attacks to be carried out to find persons responsible and bring them to justice to ensure that trust within the population was restored. She noted that the State’s position on capital punishment had serious consequences.
Ms. Stavrinaki called on the State party to ensure that the National Plan for the Protection of Human Rights and the National Development Strategy 2020–2030 were regularly assessed and achieved tangible results in eliminating discrimination. The State party had ratified various international and regional instruments, which gave it a strong mandate to protect human rights. Ms. Stavrinaki called on the State to implement the provisions of those instruments through specific measures.
She further welcomed that Cameroon had accepted a large number of refugees, and commended efforts to integrate them. She called on the State to continue such efforts.
Cameroon was a developing country, but a rich country thanks to its diversity. However, due to the lack of data on ethnic diversity, the Committee could not assess it and whether it was valued within the State. Ms. Stavrinaki noted the improvement of the school system, but stated that displaced children without identification were often forced away from schools and not given access to official exams.
The Committee noted that legislation against racial discrimination was being broadened, but there were no means of assessing the implementation of this legislation. There was no legislation on hate crimes. Ms. Stavrinaki said the Labour Code should better reflect the prohibition of all forms of racial discrimination.
The establishment of the National Human Rights Commission and its openness to civil society was noteworthy, and the State needed to support and strengthen the Commission so that it represented all segments of the population, and give it the resources required to achieve this. The State party also needed to promote bilingualism. The Convention could not be adopted without implementing legislation that clearly defined rights holders, means of protection, and means of reparation in cases of racial discrimination.
The State party needed to provide free access to birth registration for all as a high priority to improve the protection of indigenous peoples and minorities. The rights of these people could only be ensured in an environment that respected and understood diversity, and vigorously combatted prejudice and intolerance. To eliminate racial discrimination, Cameroon needed to respect diversity in law and in practice.
SALOMON EHETH, Permanent Representative of Cameroon to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, said that the dialogue had been an edifying experience, and would contribute to strengthening human rights, solidifying the rule of law, and promoting fundamental freedoms in Cameroon. He thanked the Committee Chair, Country Rapporteurs and all members of the Committee for their contributions. To build a free and fair society, it was important to define key terms such as assimilation and laws on discrimination. Mr. Eheth apologised that many members of the Cameroonian delegation had not been able to attend the dialogue due to measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The State party would carefully consider the Committee’s recommendations, and incorporate them in domestic law. The dialogue and the Committee’s recommendations would help to make Cameroon a State in which all could be treated equally and enjoy their human rights.
VERENE ALBERTHA SHEPHERD, Committee Chair, thanked the delegation for its replies, thanked the Country Rapporteurs for leading the dialogue, and thanked all Committee members for their questions.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information 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.
CERD22.002E