COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF MONGOLIA

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the sixteenth to eighteenth periodic reports of Mongolia on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The Committee also held a discussion with Senior Human Rights Officer Jane Connors on the fifth Inter-Committee Meeting of human rights treaty bodies, the eighteenth meeting of Chairpersons of Human Rights Treaty Bodies, and on treaty body reform.

Presenting the report, Dorj Odbayar, Minister for Justice and Home Affairs of Mongolia, said that Mongolia had adopted the Law on the National Human Rights Commission in December 2000, and had established an independent human rights body in January 2001. The National Human Rights Commission had been working successfully and providing feedback on human rights matters to the Parliament, Cabinet and other public organs. There was no evidence of racial discrimination registered officially in Mongolia at this time; nevertheless, Mongolia would continue to fight to ensure that there was no discrimination and to take all the measures within its capacity in that regard.

In preliminary remarks, Tang Chengyuan, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for Mongolia, noted with appreciation the establishment of the independent National Human Rights Commission, which was rare in Asia. That Commission had the right to report directly to Parliament, and he felt it would be very helpful for the country in developing harmonious relations among the various ethnic groups. Some further statistics and data were still needed on the real life of ethnic minorities in the country, and he hoped that in the next report more details would be forthcoming.

Committee Experts also asked about various issues, including education in minority languages; the prohibition against foreigners holding civil service posts or participating in political parties; the situation of the Tsaatan group with regard to education and health facilities; the legal definition of the term “indigenous citizens”, used in the report; the prohibition against foreigners practising a religion that was inconsistent with Mongolia’s traditional customs and laws; and what the report meant when it said that minorities were responsible for their own educational activities.

The delegation of Mongolia also included Danzannorov Boldbaatar, Permanent Representative of Mongolia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, and other representatives from the Government of Mongolia.

The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the reports of Mongolia, which were presented in one document, at the end of its session, which concludes on 18 August.

Introducing the reports of the fifth Inter-Committee Meeting and of the eighteenth meeting of Chairpersons of Treaty Bodies, Régis de Gouttes, the Chairperson, said the majority of the members of the Inter-Committee had concluded that it was not useful to establish a unified standing treaty body, but other suggestions – such as the establishment of unified guidelines for treaty body documents – were thought to be worth pursuing. The majority of the Chairpersons, in their meeting, had similarly been in favour of preserving the specificity of the particular Committees.

In the ensuing discussion, Experts raised the issue of coordination and collaboration between the human rights treaty bodies and the new Human Rights Council, in particular with regard to the universal periodic review mechanism and follow up to treaty body recommendations.

Jane Connors, Senior Human Rights Officer of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), said that the High Commissioner was still considering the establishment of a unified standing treaty body in the long term, but was reviewing the situation, and taking into consideration the views that she had received.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. it is scheduled to take up the sixteenth and seventeenth periodic reports of Denmark, presented in one document (CERD/C/496/Add.1).

Report of Mongolia

According to the sixteenth to eighteenth periodic reports of Mongolia, submitted in one document (CERD/C/476/Add.6), the ethnic composition of Mongolia is fairly homogeneous: there are two major national groups – khalkha and kazaks – and 15 national minorities. The percentages of the ethnic groups in the total population are: Khalkha, 79 per cent; Kazak, 5.9 per cent; Durvud and Bayad, 4.6 per cent; Buriat, 1.7 per cent; Dariganga, 1.4 per cent; and the others, 4.5 per cent. During the reporting period, the percentage of Khalkha Mongols among the ethnic groups increased and the percentage of people of Russian and Chinese origin decreased. In recent years the emigration of about 60,000 Kazakhs to Kazakhstan affected their national percentage.

Mongolia has criminalized racial discrimination and made every effort to create and carry out a policy to eliminate it. Discrimination of all kinds is constitutionally prohibited. Foreign citizens and stateless persons in Mongolia enjoy equal rights and freedoms and fulfil the same obligations as citizens of Mongolia unless otherwise specified in the Constitution and other legislative instruments. The rights and freedoms of foreign nationals and stateless persons may be restricted only in cases where this is necessary to protect the rights and fundamental freedoms of the citizens of Mongolia and to ensure State security. International treaties to which Mongolia is a party are effective as domestic legislation upon their entry into force. Among other international human rights and anti-discrimination instruments, Mongolia became party to the Convention against Discrimination in Education in 1964. In 2002, the Parliament passed the new amended Criminal Code, which provides for three offences against racial discrimination and genocide. There have been no reports of discrimination in Mongolia.

Presentation of Report

DORJ ODBAYAR, Minister for Justice and Home Affairs of Mongolia, said that Mongolia had made a number of significant steps to reach international human rights standards over the past 15 years. Internationally, Mongolia was strongly anticipating to join all the international human rights instruments. Domestically, Mongolia had enacted a new Democratic Constitution in 1992, which proclaimed that Mongolia would cherish human rights and freedoms and aspire towards the supreme objective of developing a humane, civil and democratic society. Article 14 of the Constitution stated that all persons lawfully residing within Mongolia were equal before the law and before the courts and no person could be discriminated against on the basis of, inter alia, ethnic origin, language, race, sex, social origin and status, occupation, religion, opinion or education. Those provisions were the core guiding principles of Mongolia’s approach to human rights.

Relative to its obligations and the recommendation made by the World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in 1993, Mongolia had defined a policy paper “National Human Rights Action Programme” in 2003, which was implemented on the basis of four-year periods. Mongolia had actively participated in the United Nations Summit in 2000, and had defined its own Millennium Goals, which would certainly impact the human rights situation in Mongolia.

In order to reach international standards on human rights, Mongolia had adopted the Law on the National Human Rights Commission in December 2000, and had established an independent human rights body in January 2001. Mr. Odbayar noted that the National Human Rights Commission had been working successfully and providing feedback on human rights matters to the Parliament, Cabinet and other public organs.

Mr. Odbayar wished to affirm that there was no evidence of racial discrimination registered officially in Mongolia at this time. Nevertheless, Mongolia would continue to fight to ensure that there was no discrimination and to take all the measures within its capacity in that regard.

Oral Replies by the Delegation to Written Questions Submitted in Advance

Responding to a written question submitted in advance regarding the Committee’s concern that international instruments were not self-executing, the delegation said that was not actually the case; such treaties were self-executing. Only if the treaty or international instrument was incompatible with the Mongolian Constitution was it necessary to enact them through additional legislation.

Regarding involvement of civil society organizations in the implementation of the Convention, the delegation said that civil society organizations in Mongolia were involved in the implementation of human rights law, as well as potential human rights breaches and the promotion and protection of human rights. Such organizations were free to make comments to national human rights bodies on the implementation of their mandates.

Further to a request for the geographical location of the various ethnic groups within the country and their socio-economic status, the delegation said that Mongolia held censuses every 10 years, the last having been conducted in 2000. According to those statistics there were 15 major ethnic groups. All groups spoke Mongolian, although they spoke a variety of dialects as well. A total of 4.5 per cent of the population was composed of minor ethnic groups, based on tribal affiliation.

With regard to the geographical location of ethnic groups, the delegation noted that there was no place that was specific to certain groups, rather, they were residing all over the country. For example, for the Kazak majority – the second biggest ethnic group in Mongolia – while 90 per cent were located in one province, they also resided in the capital, and there were smaller yet substantial groups residing in three other provinces, as well as smaller groups in the hundreds scattered over a number of other provinces. The situation was similar for other minorities. The delegation would furnish the Committee with a statistical table it had drawn up.

With regard to a definition of racial discrimination in domestic law, the delegation noted that international treaties were applicable in domestic law as soon as they were ratified. So the definition of racial discrimination contained in article 1 of the Convention was thus incorporated in domestic legislation.

Concerning a request for information about the statutory provision according to which the rights and freedoms of foreigners could be restricted to ensure national security or public order, the delegation clarified that only Parliament had the power to do that, through issuing legislation. No other body, such as the Cabinet had that power. There had been no such legislation enacted, the delegation confirmed.

Regarding ratification of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Mongolia was conducting careful preparations with a view to joining that Convention. It had consolidated opinion both among the public and government officials and a working group had been formed. The delegation noted that Mongolia was working in close collaboration with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on the issue and had signed a memorandum of understanding in that regard.

On the question of whether the human rights guarantees in the Constitution and other international human rights instruments to which it was a party were also extended to non-citizens, the delegation said that Mongolia guaranteed the rights of foreign citizens and stateless persons in its Constitution, and that only an act of Parliament could abridge them, as previously discussed. The new Mongolian Civil Code also considered citizens and non-citizens equally.

Addressing the report of the National Human Rights Commission on the “State of rights and freedoms of Tsaatan, national minority of Mongolia”, the delegation said that shortly after the submission of the report the Government had organized a national conference on the Tsaatan situation. The Minister of Education, Culture and Science ordered the adoption of Tsaatan language study programme by 31 December 2005. Last year a winter ice festival was organized with a reindeer-sleigh race, to introduce the Tsaatan’s lifestyle, and to preserve it.

With regard to statistics of minority participation in Parliament, national and local governments, the judiciary and the police, Mongolia had no racial requirements for its civil service, and it candidates were selected solely on the basis of exams. The Khalkha majority comprised 89 per cent of the Parliament, and the delegation provided a detailed breakdown of the participation of the other minority groups. The Cabinet had 13 members, containing representatives from four ethnic groups. There were 12 ethnic groups represented on the police force, the majority being Khalkha. The remainder, 5.1 per cent, were made up of 12 other groups.

There was no legal provision detailing refugee status as yet in Mongolia, the delegation conceded. The Mongolian Government was, however, working closely with UNHCR and would provide detailed information on that topic in its next periodic report.

Concerning the issue of trafficking, within the last few years Mongolia had faced a growth in human trafficking. The delegation said that, according to the data, there was no evidence that human trafficking had a relation to ethnic status. Mongolia had criminal provisions that addressed human trafficking, and an area of focus in Mongolia’s action plan to 2008 was the promotion of its capacity to address international human rights crimes.

Remedies for racial discrimination, owing to financial difficulties, were very difficult for the Government. There were a number of national non-governmental organizations that helped in that regard. For example, victims could turn to the National Domestic Violence Centre for shelter.

Concerning a declaration under article 14 of the Convention to allow the Committee to receive individual complaints, the delegation said that, as Mongolia had mentioned when it ratified the Convention, it would recognize the competence of the Committee within its jurisdiction.

Oral Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts

TANG CHENGYUAN, the Committee Expert serving as Country Rapporteur for Mongolia, noted that, as stated in its report, Mongolia had criminalized racial discrimination in its legislation and the Constitution provided for equal rights for all. In addition, there were more than 20 legislative instruments in Mongolia that fully met international standards. Mongolia had also ratified a number of international human rights instruments.

Mr. Tang further noted that, in its presentation, the delegation had clarified that the Convention was indeed self-executing in domestic legislation. Only if its provisions were in contradiction with the Constitution would additional legislation be required for it to be domestically applicable.

Three new anti-discrimination provisions had been included in the new Criminal Code. In general, it appeared Mongolia was in compliance with article 4 requirements regarding anti-discrimination legislation. Yet, Mr. Tang pointed out, in the case of racial discrimination, not only perpetrators should be punished; organizations that fostered such discrimination also should be prohibited.

According to the report no cases of racial discrimination had been reported. Mr. Tang felt that, given the lack of relevant statistical information in that regard, as had been requested, it was difficult to determine if there had been any actual cases of racial discrimination. The delegation had provided some statistics in its presentation, but they were insufficient and the Committee would need more details.

Mr. Tang felt that there was residual racial discrimination mindset in evidence in Mongolia. One example was the attitude of teachers to students from rural backgrounds.

Mr. Tang cited the conclusions of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, on Mongolia. Mr. Nowak had stated that the absence in the criminal code of a definition of torture and of an effective mechanism to provide shelter to victims and penalties for perpetrators meant that victims did not complain for fear of reprisals. He had also observed a lack of understanding of international human rights standards among law enforcement officials, judges and other legal officers.

In that regard, Mr. Tang urged Mongolia to address the issues raised by the Special Rapporteur, and in particular to provide training for such law enforcement officials, and to report on progress in that regard in its next report.

Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, efforts undertaken to implement the concluding observations of the Committee; whether minorities had the right to be educated in their minority languages; the prohibition against foreigners holding civil service posts or participating in political parties; the situation of the Tsaatan group, with regard to education and health facilities; the legal definition of the term “indigenous citizens”, used in the report; the prohibition against foreigners practising a religion that was inconsistent with Mongolia’s traditional customs and laws; and what the report meant when it said that minorities were responsible for their own educational activities, including the maintenance of schools.

An Expert recommended that an investigation be undertaken to determine the reasons for the lack of complaints of racial discrimination in Mongolia. If it was determined that there simply were no cases of racial discrimination, that was all well and good; but there certainly could be several reasons for a lack of complaints being brought forward.

Response by Delegation to Oral Questions

The delegation said that children born of one Mongolian parent, mother or father, could receive Mongolian citizenship. Children born in Mongolia whose parents’ citizenship was not defined, also could become Mongolian citizens. Children of stateless persons born in Mongolia could opt to become Mongolian citizens at the age of 18, if they so wished.

Foreign persons and stateless persons had the right to be covered by the Mongolian health care service, the delegation noted.

The delegation said there had been a translation error in the report with regard to foreign citizens and religious practice. The delegation read out a correct translation, which said Mongolia did not prohibit religious practices of foreigners.

On the issue of NGO participation in the preparation of the report, the delegation reiterated that the draft report was presented to the National Human Rights Commission, an independent body. According to law, all State reports on human rights were first presented to that Commission for its consideration.

Secondary education was compulsory and free, the delegation said. Concerning schools for ethnic minority groups, their secondary schools were all State schools. They had the ability, however, to organize special classes. For example, in one province, special Kazak language classes were offered. The Mongolian Government provided school materials free of charge to families with limited financial resources, and the State covered school expenses for one child of civil servants.

The Government had taken a number of measures to protect the Tsaatan people, who lived in a remote area, and their culture. In particular, the Government had launched a medical centre development programme for that region.

Preliminary Concluding Remarks

TANG CHENGYUAN, the Committee Expert who served as Country Rapporteur for Mongolia, thanked the delegation of Mongolia for the explanations that they had provided to written and oral questions, which were quite helpful, and the very valuable efforts made by the Mongolian delegation to participate and engage in the dialogue with the Committee.

There were, however, some issues remaining regarding Mongolia’s compliance with the international human rights instruments to which it was a party. In that regard, Mr. Tang joined other Experts in noting with appreciation the establishment of the independent National Human Rights Commission, which was rare in Asia. That Commission had the right to report directly to Parliament. That would be very helpful for the country in developing harmonious relations among the various ethnic groups.

Experts had raised the issue of foreigners and their participation in social and political life in the country. The delegation had provided some information on that subject today, however, and Mr. Tang felt that those explanations were sufficient.

It was true that foreigners could not establish political parties in the country, but that was true of most countries. He was also pleased to record that the information received regarding citizenship and education had been satisfactorily explained.

Some further statistics and data were still needed on the real life of ethnic minorities in the country. The delegation had provided some during its oral presentation; Mr. Tang acknowledged that such information often took a long time to gather. He hoped that in the next report more details would be forthcoming.

In general, Mr. Tang felt that the Committee and the Mongolian delegation had had a very effective dialogue and he hoped that the next report would provide more information concerning the questions raised by Experts.

Dialogue on Inter-Committee Meeting, Chairpersons’ Meeting and
Treaty Body Reform

RÉGIS DE GOUTTES, Chairperson of the Committee, introducing the reports of the fifth Inter-Committee Meeting and of the eighteenth meeting of Chairpersons of Treaty Bodies, said that at the Inter-Committee Meeting, the concept paper of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on treaty body reform had been considered. The majority of members of the Inter-Committee has concluded that it was not useful to establish a unified standing treaty body, but other suggestions – such as the establishment of unified guidelines for treaty body documents – were thought to be worth pursuing. The Inter-Committee held that the observations made by the treaty bodies should be one of the foundations for the universal periodic review established by the new Human Rights Council. It also discussed strengthening of the links with specialized agencies, funds and programmes and other entities of the United Nations, as well as participation of non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions in the work of the treaty bodies.

Regarding the eighteenth meeting of the Chairpersons of the Human Rights Treaty Bodies, Mr. de Gouttes said that it had considered the report of the fifth Inter-Committee Meeting of Human Rights Treaty Bodies. The majority of the Chairpersons had similarly considered the establishment of a unified standing treaty body was not useful and had been in favour of preserving the specificity of the particular Committees. However, they emphasized the need to improve and streamline the work of the treaty bodies and, in that connection, had approved the draft harmonized guidelines for the presentation of core documents and treaty-specific reports.


In the ensuing discussion, Experts raised the issue of coordination and collaboration between the human rights treaty bodies and the new Human Rights Council, in particular with regard to the universal periodic review mechanism and follow up to treaty body recommendations. An Expert felt that a unified body on individual communications would be useful to explore. Another Expert felt it would be beneficial to harmonize follow-up procedures and mechanisms and discussions could be organized among the various treaty body coordinators for follow-up. One Expert stressed the need for the Committee to develop a unified body of terminology in its discussions. An Expert noted the mention of the selection and training system for treaty body members, and that there should be greater regional and gender representation in treaty body membership; she would appreciate any further information in that regard.

JANE CONNORS, Senior Human Rights Officer of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), said that, with regard to terminology and standardization, that report would be resubmitted to treaty body committees for their comments. A round table of human rights institutions and treaty body experts would be held in Berlin later this year, with a view to harmonizing approaches throughout the treaty bodies. There would also be a meeting of the working group on reservations. In addition, OHCHR were convening a meeting with special representatives of specialized agencies, funds and programmes to look at how those bodies could assist with treaty body reporting. The Committee was asked to implement the guidelines adopted at the Inter-Committee Meeting and to review those that had not and to report on them next year.

Turning to the Malbun meeting, Ms. Connors said that it had been an informal meeting with 70 participants and the outcome had been a non-binding chairperson’s summary. One subject that had been brought to the fore at that meeting was transparency with respect to nominations to treaty bodies at the national level.

Ms. Connors informed the Committee that the High Commissioner was still considering the establishment of a unified standing treaty body in the long term, but was reviewing the situation, and taking into consideration the views that she had received.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CRD06023E