COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS REVIEWS THE REPORT OF FRANCE
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights today concluded its consideration of the fourth periodic report of France on its implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Elisabeth Laurin, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Office at Geneva, introducing the report, said that France had ratified the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant and it had entered into force in June 2015. Combatting all forms of discrimination was a priority area; the focus was on ensuring equal access to education, housing and employment, achieving gender equality and integrating persons with disabilities into the workplace. The multi-year plan against poverty and for social inclusion adopted in 2013 contained a range of measures to improve access to housing for all. Measures were being taken to increase the integration of children with disabilities into mainstream schools. France was at the very heart of a European initiative to ensure that 0.7 per cent of its gross domestic product went into official development assistance and international solidarity by 2030.
In the dialogue that ensued, Committee Experts grappled with the position of France concerning ethnicity and gathering of ethnic data, and how the absence of such data affected assessing the extent to which minorities enjoyed their economic, social and cultural rights, and devising targeted measures to eliminate discrimination in this regard. Experts asked how discrimination against Roma, an ethnic group, was addressed if ethnicity was not legally recognized as a ground for discrimination, and also inquired about the factors behind the failure to integrate minorities and ethnic groups. The continued negation of the existence of the right of minorities to their language and culture, and insisting that the enjoyment of this human rights ran counter to the indivisibility of the State, was very disconcerting.
Experts recognized that the draft labour law was making many workers feel insecure and inquired how France ensured the limited impact of this bill on the right to employment. There was a feeling of tightening of the space and resources for social benefits and entitlements, and an impression of a weakening of democratic and negotiating space, which, coupled with increasing criminalization of trade unions’ actions, was particularly worrisome, especially in a country like France.
In concluding remarks, Mohamed Ezzeldin Abdel-Moneim, Member of the Committee and Rapporteur for France, noted that this dialogue took place 224 years after the French Revolution and remarked that multi-culturalism was not merely an option but an obligation. The Committee’s concluding observations would be published on 24 June and would indicate which of the 10 key areas of consideration showed an improvement and to which extent, and which required further work.
In her closing remarks, Ms. Laurin said that the replies were focused on legislative and policy measures that France had put in place during the period in question, and a genuine assessment of those could only be taken later on. She reassured the Committee that the goals of the Covenant remained very dear to France.
Waleed Sadi, Committee Chairperson, said that the main point for the Committee was not only to make sure that the State party had in place necessary laws, but to understand the status of the Covenant among the key policy-makers.
The delegation of France consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Ministry of Housing and Sustainable Homes, Ministry of National Education, Higher Education and Research, Ministry of Culture and Communication, Ministry for Overseas France, Inter-ministerial Delegation for Accommodation and Access to Housing, Permanent Delegation of France to the World Trade Organization, and the Permanent Mission of France to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will meet in public at 3 p.m. today, 7 June, to start its consideration of the sixth periodic report of Sweden (E/C.12/SWE/6).
The country reviews can be watched via live webcast at http://www.treatybodywebcast.org.
Report
The fourth periodic report of France can be read via the following link: E/C.12/FRA/4
Presentation of the Report
ELISABETH LAURIN, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Office at Geneva, introducing the report, said that France had ratified the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant in March 2015 and it had entered into force in June 2015. Under this instrument, individuals had the right to file complaints if they felt that their rights enshrined in the Covenant were being violated. Combatting all forms of discrimination was a priority area for France which had focused efforts on ensuring equal access to education, housing and employment. It had passed several laws aiming to ensure gender equality in the workplace: in 2011, the law on the equal representation of women and men in management committees in companies, and in 2014, the law on real equality between men and women, which included measures to combat inequality and discrimination in the workplace and ensure equal access, on a principle of parity, to social, political and public life and all institutions. France was further focused on the integration of persons with disabilities in the workplace, and had signed in 2013 a national multiparty convention for the employment of persons with disabilities, which defined measures related to access to employment, professional training and keeping in employment persons with disabilities. Measures had been undertaken to ensure the right to housing for all, and the multiyear plan against poverty and for social inclusion, adopted in 2013, contained a range of measures to ensure housing of people without homes.
In November 2014, an action plan had been adopted which aimed to halve by 2017 the number of children leaving education without any qualification and to support return to school for drop outs. France was also taking measures to increase the integration of children with disabilities into mainstream schools and had put in place personal education plans for such students, and was investing in training teachers. Today, 280,000 children with disabilities were in school, a third more than in 2011. Since 2012, 60 kindergartens for children with autism had been opened and 50 others were in the pipeline to be ready by 2017. France sought to place international solidarity at the very heart of its work and was at the heart of the European initiative to increase the contributions to the official development aid to 0.7 per cent of the gross domestic product by 2030. In 2015, French development aid stood at 8.3 billion Euros, increasing from eight billion in 2014; it was expected that this upward trend would continue. France was fully aware of the challenges to the full enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, said Ms. Laurin, adding that the recent efforts of France were a testimony of its determination to make progress.
Questions by the Country Rapporteurs and Committee Experts
MOHAMED EZZELDIN ABDEL-MONEIM, Member of the Committee and Rapporteur for France, said that he would leave the floor to his colleagues to ask questions and that he would make some summary remarks at the end.
Another Expert took up the issue of French official development aid and asked why France used the figures on its official development assistance that were published by the OECD. Why did France not use French-generated figures? France’s contribution to official development assistance was rather low, and stood at only 0.37 per cent of the gross national income; the figure also included the amount given in loans and not only in grants, and the delegation was asked to explain whether it included only “soft” loans and whether the official figures on official development assistance included all credits extended by France.
With regard to the fight against discrimination and the options available to France as to ways to assess how minorities could enjoy economic, social and cultural rights, in particular access to housing, work and education, another Expert asked about gathering of ethnic data, which was a sensitive issue in France, and, in the absence of this data, what could be done to ensure that visible minorities enjoyed equal access to rights without discrimination. In relation to extraterritorial obligations to protect human rights, what was the position of France on the proposal to adopt the law on corporate social responsibility for companies operating abroad?
On the issue of the applicability of the Covenant in France’s domestic law, an Expert noted that the Court of Cassation had included some of the Covenant’s articles, while the Council of State had rejected the incorporation and applicability of several of the articles. What criteria established by the Council of State was relevant for the application of the Covenant in France? Did the Ombudsman have the competence in economic, social and cultural rights? To what extent would France integrate human rights and in particular economic, social and cultural rights into its trade cooperation agreements?
Another Expert noted that “Roma” referred to the concept of ethnicity, and asked how France dealt with discrimination against Roma if ethnicity was not legally recognized as a ground for discrimination. As poverty and discrimination were strongly correlated, that was why it was important that France addressed social determinants of discrimination and made more progress on the draft bill in this regard, which had been in the works for a long time.
A Committee Expert welcomed the measures France was taking to address the situation of persons with disabilities and noted that the definition of disability contained in the 2005 law on persons with disabilities was based on a medical rather than on a social model – did France intend to change this definition, in particular because its measures were more social than medical? The gender pay gap was still rather significant.
WALEED SADI, Committee Chairperson, asked whether the perspective on the issue of minorities was evolving, and about the reasons for the failure of the integration of ethnic groups – was it inadequate action by the Government or did the ethnic groups not want to integrate? France was experiencing turbulent times, everyone was watching the news and the social demonstrations that were taking place in the country – how would this affect France’s capacity to implement its obligations under the Covenant?
A widespread debate in France at the moment was one on the labour law and the new protections offered to employers – the so-called El Khomri Law. The law would allow companies to opt out of collective agreements, increase working hours, allow companies to reduce pay for overtime hours, and make it easier to make workers redundant. This bill was making many people feel insecure. To which extent was France exploring all options to ensure the limited impact of this bill on the right to employment?
France had put in place a myriad of measures and schemes to control social benefits, which seemed to be very inefficient; half of those entitled to unemployment benefits did not receive them. What disaggregated data were in place to enable the monitoring of the implementation and effectiveness of the social policies? There was a feeling of tightening the space and resources for benefits and entitlements for people in need, so much so that very few now qualified for any social support. Additionally, there was an impression of a weakening of democratic space, of negotiating space, and increasing efforts to criminalize trade union actions - coming from a country like France, this was particularly worrisome.
Replies by the Delegation
Responding to questions concerning justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights in France, a delegate explained that the Nicola Law of 1989 provided the primacy of international law over French legal provisions. However, the Council of State ruled on direct applicability of international instruments in its April 2012 ruling, by which the rights in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were not directly applicable in the French law, in the absence of direct effect.
In relation to data on ethnicity and the recognition of national minorities, it was explained that the principle of equality was enshrined in the Constitution and France did not believe that the enjoyment of this principle required differentiation on the basis of race or ethnicity. This derived from two tenants: unity and indivisibility of the nation and equality before the law. Identity of any kind was considered a private matter of any person. Statistic keeping on ethnicity would be complex, and many stakeholders had expressed doubts as to any sort of ethnic disaggregation and the use of ethnic and racial categorizing. France was committed to combatting discrimination and although could not base action on ethnic or racial-related data, could use data such as name, place of birth, nationality and others. In 2008, the National Institute of Statistics had started looking into links between origin and social status and prospects, taking into account the place of residence, and education and work history – all these data were available on the Institute’s website.
The Office of the Ombudsperson operated on an equal footing in the mainland and overseas territories, and there was a representative in each overseas territory who could receive complaints. The respect for human rights in the corporate world was of great importance in France, and the topic had been at the top priority, particularly since the adoption in 2014 of the European Union’s Directive on corporate social responsibility. France was also active on promoting the G-7 agenda on supply chains and was seeking to implement the best practices in the domain as identified by the Human Rights Council.
France had undertaken three transparency assessments of its official development assistance within the framework of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. According to the data from April 2016, France had contributed 0.37 per cent of the gross domestic product to official development aid in 2015. The President had declared the intention to increase official development aid, by four billion Euros by 2020. The French Development Agency did not provide any funding for any work that might involve child labour, child prostitution or any form of discrimination. In 2013, the Agency had adopted a sustainable document, which required the integration of dimensions of gender, environment and social commitments in the financing accords with partners, beneficiaries and clients. All aid projects financed by the official development assistance projects were strictly in line with the development standards set by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which declared that only preferential loans could be granted to recipients.
Since the adoption of the law on gender equality there had been improvements in the employment rates of women, which was now 66 per cent, among the highest in Europe. The gender pay gap remained though, and stood at an average 14 per cent; efforts were focused on removing the gap and it was indeed narrowing. Some of the measures included child care facilities in the workplace, better parental leave, tax incentives for working parents, as well as zeroing on reasons which made one gender or another dominant in different sectors. In 2013, a protocol of agreement for equality in the civil service had been signed by public sector employers and trade unions, which concerned 5.4 million employees and contained 15 different measures to ensure gender equality, and equality in career between women and men, and address gender-based violence in the workplace, among others.
France fully respected the International Labour Organization standards concerning unemployment statistics. Measures were available to support the employment of young people, which guaranteed a multidisciplinary and focused approach, to make sure that young people had access to a broad spectrum of advice. More than 90 per cent of the clients were youth who were not in employment or in further education; 21 per cent of them came from priority education zones, and a certain percentage among them were persons with disabilities. The draft labour law was being discussed with social partners. It empowered trade unions to better negotiate salaries. The bill was currently being discussed in the Parliament.
The President had declared the fight against racism and anti-Semitism a priority for 2015. Measures were focused on three axes: to repress the phenomena, to educate and to mobilize. A special unit had been set up within the Ministry of Interior to detect and deal with incitement to hate, including online. Education was required for prevention and the involvement of schools was heightened, including through the introduction of civic education classes and additional training of teachers in anti-Semitism and new forms of racism. The Fund for Memory and History had been established. Two national campaigns had been conducted, one by civil society organizations and another by the Government. Some local authorities had put in place local plans to combat racism, racial discrimination and anti-Semitism, often in collaboration with civil society organizations.
Discrimination against Roma fell under the common law, which sanctioned such acts under the broad scope of criminal law procedures. Discrimination was noted as soon as unequal treatment was noticed. Numerous French courts had found some statements by local authorities as acts not compatible with the responsibility of State elected officials. The treatment of this group of people was independent of disaggregated data on ethnicity; they, like any other group of people in poverty and insecurity were taken of and had access to provisions to combat poverty. The Roma population lived in great economic, social and cultural insecurity, marked by a barrier in accessing housing, accessing their economic, social and cultural rights and in accessing education for their children. An attempt was being made to convince Roma to access housing services made for them, which they sometimes refused. On occasion, it was necessary to evacuate camps – such operations were not arbitrary but were implemented on the basis of court rulings, and were carefully monitored.
All children aged six to 16 residing in France had a guaranteed access to education. The concept of integrated school had been included in the law in 2014, and any school must have provisions in place for non-French speaking children. There were individuals who served as links between families and the administration, in order to help the schooling of children.
The 2005 law on equality for persons with disabilities contained society’s translations of disability and contained the provisions for the adaptability of persons with disabilities, while accessibility of buildings was ensured in other instruments. Following the adoption of the 2005 law, the National Disability Conference had been established, which had been taking place every three years. According to the Government’s disability strategy, each company with 20 or more employees had to allocate six per cent of jobs for persons with disabilities, or else pay a fine.
The bill on social security and access to rights was a priority for several ministries. It established universal health coverage as of January 2016, which provided health care to all persons residing and working in France.
Follow-up Questions and Comments
One Committee Expert disagreed that the issue of Roma should be looked into as solely a question of people living in poverty. Measures generally directed to combat poverty would not properly address the real issues at the basis of discrimination against Roma. The Expert also noted that the statistics indeed allowed monitoring the implementation of policies, but it was only disaggregated data that allowed a measure of progress and impact. What was happening to unemployment protection in France; was it gradually being squeezed under the pressure of the greater number of unemployed people and the cuts in public budgets, as was happening elsewhere in Europe?
Another Expert requested additional explanation with regard to housing of Roma. The issue of disaggregated data was a sensitive one, he said, noting that talking about the discriminatory impact of policies was not at odds with declaring one’s ethnic or racial identity. What were the rights of victims of human rights violations to access justice for violations resulting from lack of oversight of French companies of their subsidiaries abroad? Concerning the labour reform law, the Expert spoke of the General Comment adopted during the last session concerning working hours, and said that the working hours situation in France was deteriorating and there was nothing in place to stop this process.
As was known from the experience of many States, ethnicity was one of the key factors of multiple discrimination, said another Expert and asked how it was possible to operate without a reference to ethnic problems and ethnic discrimination and moving straight to a question on whether a person was in an inferior position or not. It was not the question of the French doctrine of a unified nation, but its applicability in practice.
Responses by the Delegation
Unemployment benefits in France were paid for 14 months on average, and there were persons who received benefits for 24 or 36 months, which after Belgium and the Netherlands was the most generous in Europe.
France was aware of difficulties involved in compensating victims of human rights violations by French subsidiaries abroad and that was why it stressed the obligation for due diligence. The proposed law on headquarters companies, currently under discussion, provided that enterprises fulfilling certain standards of size were obliged to put in place the oversight plan for their subsidiaries, which must be made public.
Questions by Committee Experts
With regard to access to housing for Roma residing in French territory, the delegation was asked about the implementation of the law which obliged local authorities to make available encampment sites for Travellers. The Committee had clear cut rules concerning forced evictions and the Expert asked whether France complied with its obligations deriving from the Covenant in this regard.
What was being done to combat poverty among the most vulnerable, such as single parent families, long-term unemployed, and to address the poverty rates in overseas territories which were three times higher than in the mainland? The Expert recognized the achievement of providing housing for 23,000 families in need of a home and stressed that demand outstripped the supply: there were 3.5 million persons in France who lived in precarious housing, out of which 2.7 million were in especially difficult situations. Additionally, it was estimated that 17,000 persons lived in slums and because they lived in illegal settlements, they were subject to forced evictions. What steps were being taken to combat homelessness?
Experts further asked whether a strategy to combat violence against women had been established, and if so, what were the outcomes and impact, the status of the solidarity income benefit, strategies to tackle regional disparities in social services and how socio-economic inequalities were addressed in practice, and the extent to which the generous family benefits could be extended to refugees, migrants and asylum seekers.
Concerning challenges in the education sector, the delegation was asked about the connection between social origin of students and school success, and how it was being addressed in the school reform, the relationship between local authorities and schools, refusal to admit Roma and Traveller children in some municipalities and measures to keep those children in school and prevent dropping out. The illiteracy rate and school dropout rate were rather high in Mayotte, while in French Guiana a significant number of children were never in school, while there was no provision in the school curriculum to understand the local and indigenous culture.
In 2013, France had constitutionally recognized regional languages as a part of France’s heritage, but it was unclear what it meant in terms of broadening the protection of the culture and languages. The judgement by the Constitutional Court that this article in the Constitution did not constitute a right or a freedom was quite shocking. What measures were being taken to address the persistent pockets of language discrimination in France?
Replies by the Delegation
The agreement on unemployment benefits had been concluded with social partners in 2014; it was important to say that its duration did not change and the amount paid out remained at 71 per cent of the last salary. Unemployment benefits, as other social benefits in France, had enabled the offsetting of the negative effects of the economic and financial crisis. According to a recent report by the International Labour Organization, France was one of the countries where the social net and social security, particularly unemployment benefits, had helped offset the worst effects of poverty.
In order to help women overcome their reluctance in reporting violence, a helpline had been set in 2014 to provide assistance via phone to women victims of violence. The national protocol for reporting of violence against women was in place to ensure that all cases were dealt with by the national police and gendarmerie. The strategy to prevent violence against women 2014-2016 had been rolled out locally, 231 social stakeholders had been deployed within the police and gendarmerie to provide help to victims requiring assistance. Additionally, a number of day-care centres had been established in 14 departments for women and their children.
Active solidarity income still existed in France and was one of the figureheads of the multi-year anti-poverty plan, and there existed the baseline solidarity income and in work solidarity income. Recently, an employment grant had been added to the in-work solidarity income to bolster the purchasing power of the people, particularly youth.
The poor had access to education, health and family benefits. France was trying to get to the heart of poverty, and was seeking to provide a social security floor and offer a springboard for personal development. Policies in place offset the worst impacts of the financial crisis on the poor families. Poverty had levelled off since 2012, but poverty and exclusion remained, especially among single-parent households and low-income workers. France intended to provide further training for longer-term unemployment and to also offer training in information and communication technology to enable individuals to access jobs and information about benefits. In April, France had re-assessed the solidarity income, the minimum basic income and social grants.
As far as overseas territories were concerned, the delegation explained that in addition to anti-poverty measures applicable in metropolitan France, there were also specific measures taken to address poverty there. Those included monitoring the inflation of the prices of essential goods and capping of the price of the basic food basket, which was defined on the basis of consumption patterns specific to each territory, and the principles of healthy nutrition. Food aid and food assistance to the most needy were part of the social justice agenda throughout France.
There were difficulties in providing access to water in overseas territories, such as cuts in the supply and the price of water which was higher than in metropolitan France. To address this problem, local communities were coming together to manage water together and increase their power in negotiating with water suppliers. Additionally, the Government had recently announced the Water Plan for Overseas Territories which would improve sanitation, and the quality of water supply, by assisting local communities to increase their water and sanitation coverage.
The 5 July 2000 law on welcome and housing of Travellers (Besson Law) obliged all local communities with more than 5,000 inhabitants to provide areas and facilities for temporary settlements for Travellers. National education services in departments were linked with accommodation provisions; schooling of Traveller children fell under the common law and the children were welcome in primary, middle or secondary schools. Children were addressed in both mainstream schools, or separate schools were created for them, mobile schools, which followed the children in their travels. Highly itinerant children were enrolled in national distance learning programmes: in 2014 there were 9,450 pupils in such programmes and 10,054 in the 2015/16 school year.
France believed that the approach to housing must be comprehensive and could not address only one link in the chain. Ensuring access of everyone to housing was indeed a question of having a sufficient number of housing units, but also there was a need to combat extremely poor quality of housing. Such units often had very high energy consumption and accommodated very poor families. France further levied tax on empty housing units and encouraged associations to let empty houses to individuals who otherwise would not have access to homes. The greatest investment in the housing area was the production of social housing. The 2000 law on solidarity and urban regeneration obliged municipalities with a shortage of social housing to build more. Access to housing was also an important consideration, but it was not the only one: effective occupancy and social effect of habitation were primary considerations for the Government. Allocation of social housing must be governed by very clear, transparent and unbiased criteria; those were contained in the bill on solidarity and citizenship which the National Assembly would debate in January 2017. The bill would ensure that 25 per cent of the reservations for local housing would have to be allocated to the most vulnerable population and those with very urgent housing needs.
In addition to applying the common law concerning housing in overseas territories, there were additional measures to improve the housing situation there, such as LBU - a single budgetary line, taxation and incentives. The LBU meant that all the funding for housing in overseas communities was brought together under a single budget line, which allowed greater flexibility and greater speed of implementation than in metropolitan France. Investors enjoyed a more favourable tax regime and those tax incentives were beneficial as they increased profitability of housing investments.
Improving equality in the access to the health system was a priority for the Ministry of Health, and this was also the aim of the December 2015 law which had strengthened patients’ rights, strengthened prevention, and contained measures to reduce social inequalities in access to health. In terms of prevention, the focus was on targeting malnutrition, poor nutrition and smoking, which were more prevalent among the unemployed. It was noted that 80 per cent of children of blue collared workers who attended kindergarten had dental problems, so the law had put in place measures to address dental health, particularly for children. As a result of less favourable conditions in overseas communities, mother and infant mortality rates were higher, as was the prevalence of chronic diseases such as diabetes. There were efforts to increase hospital coverage and there were 20 polyclinics that facilitated access to health services. The priorities for the health authorities were to address health risks through better monitoring of pregnant women, including young mothers and mothers with diabetes; ensure proper nutritional labelling, especially with regard to sugar content; and others.
Follow-up Questions and Comments
Was the solidarity income being paid out to unemployed persons, or not? Poverty was considered more as a personal shortcoming rather than a result of societal shortcomings and failure of integrated social policies; what was the prevailing attitude in France? Did the supply meet the demand in terms of services provided to Travellers and whether they met the expectations of people they were serving?
The continued negation of the existence of the right of minorities to language and culture, and insisting that the enjoyment of the right ran counter to the indivisibility of the State was very disconcerting. Experts were concerned that France was making a majestic mistake in this regard and was adopting poor strategy in facing diversity in the country.
WALEED SADI, Committee Chairperson, asked how the rights of refugees and migrants were determined, under international law or national law, and how their treatment was defined.
Replies by the Delegation
The solidarity income was not paid to youth under the age of 25 – they were entitled to receive an unemployment grant. The delegation recalled that it was the initiative of France within the Human Rights Council which had led to the adoption of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights.
The school curricula had been overhauled in terms of the subjects and teaching methods, and included the definition of core curriculum and cultural skills at all levels of teaching; the aim was to demonstrate to the children that the same was expected of them wherever they were in France.
The National Health Strategy was available online, on the website of the Ministry of Health. There was an extensive discussion concerning the distribution of young doctors throughout the territory, and the delegation said that the new generation of doctors preferred to operate in group settings, so polyclinics were very popular.
Steps were being taken to improve the lot of asylum seekers and stabilize the situation of irregular migrants and refugees. The asylum law focused on expedited processing of asylum applications and on enhanced rights to enable asylum seekers to claim their rights under the asylum process. At the moment, the refugee claim procedure – from the moment of entry and lodging of the request, till the decision - took seven to eight months, during which time asylum seekers lived in total insecurity and uncertainty. The aim was to reduce the procedure to three to four months, so 50 more officials had been recruited in addition to the 300 already in place. A new benefits system for asylum seekers was in place, open to all those seeking asylum, and the size of benefits was calculated according to the size of the family. Housing of asylum seekers was a challenge, and some 30,000 units had been made available with the plan to open an additional 3,500 this year. A new development was the right to free legal counsel. Approved applicants received a 10-year residence permit, and had access to housing, health and education. Consideration was being given to family reunification, while language training programmes were put in place for refugees under the age of 25, to facilitate their access to employment.
Concluding Remarks
MOHAMED EZZELDIN ABDEL-MONEIM, Member of the Committee and Rapporteur for France, said that this dialogue took place 224 years after the French Revolution and remarked that Experts asked 76 questions concerning the fourth periodic report of France. Multi-culturalism was not merely an option, it was an obligation, said Mr. Abdel-Moneim, stressing that the key question was whether France complied with its obligations under the Covenant during the reporting period. The Committee’s concluding observations would be published on 24 June and would indicate which of the 10 key areas of consideration showed an improvement and to which extent, and which required further work.
ELISABETH LAURIN, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that this was a particularly important dialogue given the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Covenant. The delegation focused replies on legislative and policy measures put in place during the period in question; a genuine assessment of those could only be taken later on. The goals of the Covenant remained very dear to France, she reassured the Committee.
WALEED SADI, Committee Chairperson, said it was fair to say that this was a good dialogue, adding that the main point for the Committee was not only to make sure that the State party had in place necessary laws, but to also understand the status of the Covenant among the policy-makers, such as Parliamentarians, and Ministers.
For use of the information media; not an official record
ESC16/010E