COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF KAZAKHSTAN

The Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of Kazakhstan on how that country implements the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Presenting the report, Gaziz Telebayev, Vice-Minister of Culture and Information of Kazakhstan, said Kazakhstan had a policy of maintaining inter-ethnic harmony within the country. The principle of tolerance was a key principle of the State and would be defended decisively. On 5 May 2009, the President of Kazakhstan had approved the National Plan of Action on Human Rights, 2009-2012, which set out a number of measures for further refinement of national legislation, including reflection of the provisions of the Convention. The law would create a separate criminal and personal liability for persons who promulgated racial discrimination or allowed acts of such nature committed against others. Furthermore, there had never been any serious conflict on an inter-religious basis in the country and Kazakhstan’s experience of inter-confessional dialogue had been recognized and supported by the leaders of religions throughout the world. Another means of encouraging tolerance in Kazakhstan was education, in particular where there were large clusters of different ethnic groups living together.

In preliminary concluding observations, Ion Diaconu, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Kazakhstan, said that while the most pressing issue was to continue educating all citizens on the need for inter-ethnic and inter-religious dialogue, social and economic causes to the witnessed problems also needed to be given more attention in order to avoid conflicts. The Government was encouraged to continue dealing with challenges in that direction. Kazakhstan offered a good example of a State with different State languages and ethnic communities and the Government should also pursue its efforts to provide education in the mother tongues of the various ethnic groups, as well as to ensure, to the greatest possible extent, the active participation of representatives of ethnic groups.

Over the course of the two meetings with the delegation, Committee Experts highlighted that, although there was legislation forbidding racial discrimination in some fields, there was no specific overall legislation on racial discrimination, its direct and indirect forms. Other questions included the Government’s position on the use of the Russian language; details of cases brought for incitement to religious hatred and penalties imposed; the fact that Roma people continued to be subjected to discrimination; and whether there would be a review of the procedures of the Ombudsman’s Office to ensure that people could file complaints more easily. A small number of complaints often did not mean that there were no problems, but rather that people were not aware of how to claim their rights, Experts underscored.

The delegation of Kazakhstan also included representatives of the Permanent Mission of Kazakhstan to the United Nations in Geneva; the Ministry of the Interior; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of Labour and Social Security; the Ministry of Culture and Information; the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Education and Science; the Assembly of People of Kazakhstan; the Human Rights Commission; the National Centre for Human Rights; the Supreme Court; and the General Prosecutor’s Office.


The next meeting of the Committee will be at 3 p.m. today, when it will take up the fifteenth to twentieth periodic reports of Panama (CERD/C/PAN/15-20).

Report of Kazakhstan

The combined fourth and fifth periodic report of Kazakhstan (CERD/C/KAZ/4-5) notes that in the period since independence Kazakhstan has done an enormous amount to improve its legislation and bring it into line with the provisions of the international human rights instruments which the country has ratified. In Kazakhstan the principle of inter-nationality, inter-confessional and interracial unity is both proclaimed and applied in practice. The people of Kazakhstan, consisting of more than 130 nationalities and ethnic groups, fully supports all the initiatives taken by the State in the area of ethnic and religious policy. This policy is designed to secure the civic consolidation of the people of Kazakhstan and to have a positive influence on the inter-nationality relations of the country’s inhabitants. There is therefore no need to draft a special law on racial discrimination: Kazakhstan has no objective requirement for such a law, for the principles of the elimination of racial discrimination are embodied in the Constitution of the Republic and in many other pieces of legislation on human rights and the rights of citizens, in particular in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the corresponding rules are to be found.

The Criminal Code contains a separate article, in the chapter on offences against the peace and security of mankind, which sets out the body of offences incurring criminal liability for incitement of social, national, ethnic, racial or religious enmity. The provisions of this article stipulate criminal liability for creating conflicts between citizens of different nationalities, ethnic groups or races which may be accompanied by acts of aggression, physical reprisals or the threat of reprisals, destruction of or damage to property, isolation, segregation, or restriction of rights, privileges or advantages, as well as for acts calculated to demean the shrines, way of life, structure or history of individual races, nationalities or nations. In addition, the Code of Administrative Offences contains a provision increasing such liability for administrative offences motivated by national, racial or religious hatred or enmity, which are specified as aggravating circumstances. The Labour Code further provides that no one may be subjected to any discrimination in the exercise of labour rights on the ground of sex, age, physical disability, race, nationality, language, property, social or official position, place of residence, attitude to religion, political opinions, ethnic or class affinity or membership of voluntary associations. Persons who consider that they have been subjected to discrimination at work are entitled to apply to the courts or to other bodies in accordance with the procedure established by domestic law.

Introduction of the Report

GAZIZ TELEBAYEV, Vice-Minister of Culture and Information of Kazakhstan, introducing the report, said Kazakhstan had a policy of maintaining inter-ethnic harmony within the country. The principle of tolerance was a key principle of the State, and was supported and would be defended decisively. Kazakhstan was determined to demonstrate to the Committee the results of its practical work to translate that principle into reality. Kazakhstan’s policy was based on five principles: that ethnic, confessional, cultural and language diversity constituted an invaluable asset and the moral and spiritual basis of Kazakh society; a determination to create all possible conditions for the development of the ethnic and language groups; the universal principle of tolerance; the consolidating role of the Kazakh people as an integrating force, with a special responsibility for the future of the people; and the unity of the Kazakh people.

Mr. Telebayev said that guaranteed Parliamentary representation of the ethnic groups of Kazakhstan had had a positive effect on the lives of all citizens, regardless of their ethnicity, allowing for stability and civil peace to be ensured in the country, in an atmosphere of tolerance and trust.

On 5 May 2009, the President of Kazakhstan had approved the National Plan of Action on Human Rights, 2009-2012, which set out a number of measures for further refinement of national legislation, including reflection of the provisions of the Convention. The law would create a separate criminal and personal liability for persons who promulgated racial discrimination or allowed acts of such nature to be committed against others.

One particular feature of Kazakhstan's policy was an effective system of interaction between the State and civil society, the main mechanism of which was the Kazakhstan People's Assembly, ensuring equal partnership between the State and ethno-cultural organizations. Currently the Assembly was an organ bringing together the capacities of civil society and of the State Authority. It had constitutional status, and was represented in the Lower House of Parliament, making it possible for the Assembly to ensure representation of the interests of all ethnic groups at the highest State level. The Assembly sent nine deputies to the Lower House of Parliament representing its interests and the interests of all ethnic persons in the country, Mr. Telebayev said.

In the local bodies, at all levels, ethnic groups were represented by deputies. Not a single ethnic group had a limitation on its social rights, and all were entitled to participate in economic and social affairs and to participate in decision-making. The Kazakh model of inter-ethnic tolerance had a basic plan: unity through diversity. The plan of the Government was to unite and support the different ethnicities. The different ethnic groups had all the necessary instruments to promote their interests. The model was generally consistent with the approaches of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The State was fully informed of all problems affecting ethnic groups, and the latter had direct access to the organs of State authority.

In areas where members of ethnic groups lived together, their representatives constituted a mechanism to ensure the balance of ethnic interest. Thus, in the Uighur district of Almaty, 48 per cent of civil servants were representatives of that group. The principle of non-discrimination was also maintained when training staff.

Kazakhstan had unique experience in the history of religions – there had never been any serious conflict on an inter-religious basis in the country, Mr. Telebayev noted. Currently, there were some 4,000 religious institutions registered in the country, representing a range of confessions and denominations, with more than 3,000 religious premises, and they did not have to pay taxes. The experience of inter-confessional dialogue had been recognized and supported by the leaders of religions throughout the world.

Kazakhstan had constantly increased funding for its policy in inter-ethnic relations, despite the continuing economic crisis, Mr. Telebayev added. It was working with the media, as an effective way of preventing negative tendencies, and to prevent dissemination of materials inciting to inter-ethnic or inter-religious hatred. Another means of encouraging tolerance was education, in particular where there were large clusters of different ethnic groups living together. The State had further set up a system of legal and regulatory Acts, which were designed to ensure equal rights for citizens without regard for their ethnic or national origin.

The laws in force on crimes with racial motivation were in line with international laws and Kazakhstan's obligations under its international commitments. One of the measures that the Government had taken in that regard was setting up an Anti-Terrorist Centre, which was designed to ensure that terrorism was seen as a social phenomenon which should be addressed on different levels. At the same time, it had set up a structure to combat terrorism and separatism. In that connection, Mr. Telebayev drew attention to the fact that Kazakhstan, which was currently chair of OSCE, had inscribed its leadership of that body under the motto of “Trust, Tradition, Transparency and Tolerance”.

Response by the Delegation to Written Questions Submitted in Advance

Responding to the list of issues submitted by the Committee in advance, the delegation clarified that in 2006 the plan to improve the Kazakh situation of inter-ethnic harmony, which provided for further participation of civil society in improving and developing inter-ethnic relations, had been approved. A new Programme was being developed to run from 2011-2020, through targeted State and sectoral programmes.

The standards reflecting the refusal of racial discrimination were covered widely in Kazakhstan's legislation, the delegation said, including on citizenship, the organization and assembly of peaceful public demonstrations, culture, and the mass media. The Criminal Code contained a separate article in the section on crimes against human peace and security, and there was a crime contained therein of creating religious, minority, racial or inter-ethnic enmity.

The Constitutional Council ensured that the Constitution was supreme throughout Kazakhstan, and ensured the protection of all rights declared therein, including that no one should be subjected to discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, race, religion, or other criteria, including motives of language. Today there was no objective need to adopt any specific law on the rights of those belonging to minorities. All ethnic groups had high legal and social status, and their representatives were considered to have the same rights as the single unified people of Kazakhstan.

In Kazakhstan there was no movement for separatism, and no inter-ethnic tension that risked escalating into a conflict. All the conflicts in the country were based on criminal or mundane issues, such as the overpopulation of some areas, and the unfair division of land – although there were attempts by some people to use the ethnic factor for their own ends. There was a high level of tolerance, and to make sure that conflicts did not take place in the future, preventive measures had been adopted, including a whole series of information measures to disseminate the real reasons behind the conflict and to foster understanding.

Questions by Experts

ION DIACONU, Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Kazakhstan, observed that Kazakhstan had to start creating institutions, adopting legislation and building a new society, including all these ethnic groups, on a completely new basis. The Committee did recognize that it had created some democratic institutions, adopted generous legislation, and made a lot of progress in many fields, including that of human rights. Of course, it was not perfect, and could do better.

It seemed the most difficult problem the country was facing was inter-ethnic tension, which had known some outbursts between 2004 and 2008, leading to serous consequences, including loss of life. Affirming that problems were usually solved locally and could not affect the atmosphere of cooperation and mutual understanding, as the report had done, was not a solution; the causes of those events should be examined and dealt with. All of them involved Kazakhs on one side and Chechens, Uighurs or Uzbeks on the other. The State had to be the State of all citizens, irrespective of race, nationality or ethnic origin. The Government needed to explain how it was intending to proceed in order to avoid such events.

Another pressing issue seemed to be that of education and culture in mother tongues, and of the use of languages in the State. The Ministry of Education and Science and the Ministry of Culture should, respectively, thoroughly review the situation and, consulting the communities concerned, find appropriate solutions, Mr. Diaconu said.

From the point of view of legislation, experience proved that it was not enough to have a generous Constitution. Its principles had to be translated into proper legislation in practical terms, so as to define the tasks of the competent authorities, the modalities of execution, and the results to be obtained. Although there was legislation forbidding racial discrimination in some fields, there was no specific overall legislation on racial discrimination, its direct and indirect forms. Mr. Diaconu therefore recommended a review of the whole domestic legislation against the background of the Convention, in order to fill in the gaps.

The report presented some data on the representation of ethnic groups in State bodies at central and local levels, Mr. Diaconu noted. The figures given showed that efforts should continue, to ensure their adequate representation. It was not enough to proclaim that there would be no discrimination in recruitment; it was important to consider the situation, and for the Committee to receive data. It was in the interest of the State to be aware of the needs of different strata of the population, and that should remain a constant preoccupation. The next report should present disaggregated data on the socio-economic situation of different ethnic groups and areas of the country, and how they were protected against racial discrimination in the exercise of their rights.

The Rapporteur also asked what was the situation of the Chechens, Chinese citizens, and others coming from some neighbouring States as refugees, and whether the adopted Refugee Bill solved all issues concerning the granting of the status of refugee. The report also did not mention cases of racial discrimination considered by the judiciary or the Ombudsman, and that seemed to be due to a lack of information about the Convention, and the lack of confidence that such cases would be dealt with.

International standards did not promote an integration of cultures, languages and religions with the aim of creating an amorphous amalgam, but their coexistence and respect for their diversity, Mr. Diaconu observed. That did not exclude economic and social integration, intercultural exchanges and adaptation to the international and national environment, without losing their identity and being protected against forced assimilation. Taking into account the declared concern of the State about unity in diversity, the Committee wished to know if ethnic groups were organized, whether they were allowed to create associations, and how the Government was consulting representatives of those groups when taking measures concerning them.

The Committee had to encourage Kazakhstan to continue to improve its legislation and activities in order to ensure the full application of the Convention, the Rapporteur concluded.

Among issues raised by other Committee Experts were the difficulty of maintaining inter-ethnic harmony among so many ethnic groups, particularly in times of economic and social hardship; what was the Government’s position of the with regard to the use of the Russian language as a form of lingua franca; what explained the increased influence of religion in the State; more information on the draft Law on Refugees mentioned in the report; and how many refugees Kazakhstan was currently hosting.

Other questions included the what concrete cases there had been of incitement to religious hatred and what penalties had been applied; the need for the provisions of the Convention to be set out in as clear a manner as possible within national legislation, detailing as many aspects of racial discrimination as possible including penalties and compensation; the issue of denunciation of treaties, in particular human rights treaties, which would lead citizens without protection; and the need to remain attentive to the consequences of setting a State language. An Expert also asked for some clarifications on terminology used in the report. What had been meant in the report by saying there was a need to take into account the "genetic attitudes" of children? Presumably that should be the "ethnic" attitudes? Also, what was the State Party's understanding of the term "national minority" and why had it chosen not to use the term?

Response by the Delegation

Responding to these and other questions and issues raised by Experts, the delegation said there had been some developments since the report had been written. In Kazakhstan, there were two kinds of institutions for human rights: the Human Rights Commission (Ombudsman), under the President of Kazakhstan; and a recommendatory, consultative and advisory body for the State, providing advice to the President. The Commission worked on reviewing State policy in the field of human rights and worked also as a platform for dialogue between the population and the State. The two institutions complemented each other, and had formulated the National Action Plan on Human Rights.

With regard to the question on ethnic conflicts, that Government had thoroughly studied the underlying, root causes and found that those were mostly to be found in the economic field. Statistical data in fact suggested that the Uighur ethnic group, among others, was underprivileged regarding a number of factors. Different ethnic groups had different economic assets and dominated different parts of the economy, thus resulting in higher income and contributing to social tensions and ethnic discrimination. While there were also problems of land ownership that might falsely appear to be problems of an ethnic nature, the delegation said the Government recognized the need to design and implement social and economic strategies that took into account those issues. Kazakhstan was not alone in this; many countries whose citizenship was composed of several ethnic groups faced similar problems. The Government of Kazakhstan had implemented a three-year-plan and had a strategic development plan in place for the period until 2020 in order to strengthen the unity of the people of Kazakhstan.

Providing more information on the Assembly of the People of Kazakhstan, the delegation said that the President had signed a decree on its establishment on 1 March 1995. All of the 46 ethnic groups in Kazakhstan had been in contact with the Assembly, and the Assembly’s regional representations and its permanent mechanisms allowed various ethnic groups to be informed and take part in the Assembly.

Turning to the economic status of different ethnic groups, the delegation noted that detailed information was available on that issue, suggesting that Kazakhs were the dominant ethnic group and active in all parts of the labour sector. Uzbeks and Russians were also very present, but felt that they were insufficiently represented. The middle class was approximately 50 per cent Kazakh, and the poorest group mostly consisted of Kazakhs and Ukrainians. That data confirmed the existence of differences among ethnic groups that potentially led to inter-ethnic tensions, which the Government would however continue to tackle by appropriate measures.

Concerning the lack of a specific law on racial discrimination, the delegation explained that those international treaties and conventions that had been ratified by Kazakhstan had priority over national law and could be directly applied. The Criminal Code also provided for sanctions for crimes relating to discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, property, and other grounds. While the major principles in that regard were enshrined in the Constitution, regulatory provisions were also in place, as was the law on the legal status of foreigners, the law on citizenship, and the law on marriage and families, among other laws. That legislation all contained provisions prohibiting discrimination in Kazakhstan. Moreover, there were administrative norms that provided for sanctioning administrative offences with regard to racial discrimination.

As for the Committee’s request for further information on the National Action Plan on Human Rights Education (2005) and indicators on that, the delegation said that Kazakhstan supported the United Nations global human rights education programme, which had been adopted and recommended by the General Assembly. To draft a national action plan, several Government ministries had conducted a study on education and indicators had been developed to monitor knowledge of human rights in collaboration with civil society representation and experts. The United Nations and other international organizations working in Kazakhstan had also actively collaborated with the Government to improve teaching in the field of human rights and special measures in that respect. There was also a Committee working on human rights education in schools with a focus on disseminating information relating to the Convention of the Rights of the Child. Furthermore, the national plan of action paid particular attention to the legal aspects of human rights, a number of libraries including works on human rights had been set up with assistance from United Nations Development Programme and the national academic library had a website that was regularly updated and also provided off-line content related to human rights.

Addressing Experts’ concerns about a lack of information on cases of racial discrimination, the delegation reported that, in 2008, two persons had been condemned for acts of racial discrimination, and eight persons were currently being detained for such issues. More than 1,500 written complaints relating to discrimination on ethnic grounds had been received and considered, with several cases being confirmed as cases of non-conformity with the Labour Code. In addition, from 2005 to 2009, the Ombudsman had received some 20 complaints relating to racial discrimination. However, when thoroughly investigated by the Ombudsman, several cases had been withdrawn by citizens, and others had been found not to relate to racial discrimination. Every three months an information bulleting was also published to inform on the work of the Ombudsman.

All citizens of Kazakhstan were entitled to choose their language of education. In fact, schools operated in several languages, based on the needs of the ethnic groups residing in Kazakhstan, and education was not only provided by ethnic schools but also by mixed language teaching schools. Detailed statistical data on the enrolment rate of children of different backgrounds and their language of education was available. There also was a programme aimed at ensuring the provision of linguistically appropriate teaching materials, with over 150 teaching materials being translated into ethnic minority languages, and staff had been trained to teach other languages. The main task ahead was to ensure that graduates from schools with a teaching language other than Kazakh, including Uighur schools, could acquire the necessary Kazakh language skills to appropriately integrate into Kazakh society.

Turning to the question on the representation of historic facts in textbooks, the delegation explained that the history and culture of Kazakh people was closely linked to that of other ethnic peoples living in Kazakhstan. Textbooks contained significant information on other ethnic groups, including on the Uighurs, and subjects of importance in that regard. Improving children’s knowledge on other ethnic groups was indeed promoted by the Government in an attempt to ensure the peaceful co-habitation of several ethnic communities.

The delegation said that before a document, law or regulatory act was adopted in Kazakhstan, it was subjected to expert analysis to ensure it did not contain any elements of racial discrimination, and if any such element were found, it would be thoroughly revised and not adopted.

Kazakhstan had adopted a targeted policy aimed at facilitating and ensuring the appropriate conditions for a return of Oralmans (“returnees” or ethnic Kazakhs immigrants) willing to return to Kazakhstan. That included special housing, financial and other benefits, and a provision that Oralmans did not have to comply with the five-year period required to obtain Kazakh citizenship.

As for Experts questions on refugees, Kazakhstan had ratified the relevant convention in that regard. Kazakhstan in fact hosted many refugees from several countries, including Afghan, Uzbek and Chechen citizens. However, that did not cause any problems and many of the refugees who previously lived in the country had left Kazakhstan thanks to the improved conditions in their countries of origin. An asylum-seeker could either apply for refugee status upon arrival in Kazakhstan or via Kazakhstan’s representatives abroad. As to the Committee’s question on migratory flows, there had been a positive balance in that regard in favour of Kazakhstan.

The delegation also said that any foreigner under Kazakh regulation could use Russian to file a complaint. Article 2 of Kazakhstan’s law on language established that the Russian language would be treated as equal to Kazakh. Compliance with all of Kazakhstan’s laws on language was closely monitored and liability was established if a Government official refused to accept communications in an officially recognized language. Both educational and prophylactic work had been undertaken in that regard.

Over the last five years some 50 sentences had been handed down regarding the punishment for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred, but investigations highlighted that only eight cases actually pertained to that issue. However, the Government did recognize that incitement to inter-ethnic and inter-religious hatred existed. That was taken very seriously and the Government undertook every effort to constantly measure, prevent and combat such incidents.

Further Questions and Comments by Committee Members

In a further round of questions and comments, Experts noted, among other things, that there was no place for critics regarding the measures taken regarding the integration of Oralmans. However, had discussions been conducted how to best strengthen cooperation with neighbouring countries where Kazakhs resided? Experts also drew attention to the fact that Roma people continued to be subjected to discrimination and that efforts to ensure the unity of all Kazakh citizens needed to be further strengthened in spite of the currently witnessed economic global crisis.

The language policies adopted by Kazakhstan also seemed to be very balanced, but had there been any efforts to support oral ethnic language cultures to complement the provision of education in ethnic languages? Also, Kazakhstan’s efforts to strengthen the status of religion in collaboration with a number of religious associations were interesting – could the delegation further elaborate on that?

Turning to legislation, Committee Members noted that the integrative approach was a very useful one, but was specific legislation to tackle racial discrimination under way? Committee Members also wondered whether there was any policy to review the procedures of the Ombudsman’s Office and to ensure that people could file complaints more easily. A small number of complaints often did not mean that there were no problems, but rather that people were not aware of how to claim their rights, Experts underscored.

On the free movement of persons in the rural area, Experts noted that many people, often elderly people, needed to go from village to village to sell their goods. That was often very difficult and dangerous, particularly in winter. Was there any budget to remedy this situation, and what efforts had been undertaken to facilitate circulation in rural regions?

Response by the Delegation

Responding to these questions and others, the delegation said, with regard to religious issues, that in Kazakhstan a law on freedom of conviction and conscience was enforced. Kazakhstan’s religious leaders also ensured that there was a constructive inter-religious dialogue – Kazakhstan had allowed visits by the Pope, Muftis and other religious leaders. There had not been any conflicts between religious groups. That highlighted that inter-religious and inter-ethnic understanding was taken very seriously and was conducted effectively by the Government. Kazakhstan’s commitment in that regard was also demonstrated in its support of the United Nations General Assembly’s efforts to declare 2010 as the year for the rapprochement of cultures.

On the use of the terms “national or ethnic minorities”, the delegation said that those terms referred to people of ethnic groups that did not belong to the main minority groups of Kazakhstan’s communities. However, since the term “national minority” suggested that such ethnic groups were threatened by disappearance, which was not the case, and because the Government believed that its citizens were one people, the term “national minority” was generally avoided.

On the legal status of foreigners, the delegation said that that was regulated by the law on foreigners of 1995. The process was that foreigners wishing to temporarily reside in Kazakhstan had to register within five days of crossing the border, and that their visa obligation was verified. In 2009, the Ministry of Foreigners registered over 1 million foreigners. As for labour migrants, there were no problems for legal labour migrants, but persons using tourist visas for work purposes were held liable and pursued as appropriate. The Government had also sent to Parliament a draft law on migration which was expected to enter into force in 2010.

With regard to the possible threat of ethnic conflict, the delegation noted that the Government had set up an early warning system to detect ethnic conflicts. In 2008, a centre for analysis and forecasting of ethnic conflict had been set up, and governmental agencies and ministries were working closely together to remedy that situation. Furthermore, criminal events between ethnic groups were monitored, media monitoring was conducted by the Ministry of Information on a day-to-day basis and on a 24-hour basis, and publications of illegal contents would be reacted to very quickly with the objective being to avoid the publication of illegal information.

On the direct election of members of the National Assembly of Peoples of Kazakhstan, the delegation said that the National Assembly was both a state body and a body representing civil society. Members would therefore be elected first by their associations and then be recommended to the Assembly.

As for the establishment of a separate act for the elimination of discrimination, the delegation said that the Constitution prohibited ethnic discrimination and that there was both civil and criminal liability. There were also plans to develop additional legislation to develop a separate law on discrimination and to separate civil and criminal liability in that regard.

On collaboration with regard to the reintegration of returning peoples, there was some such cooperation with both the Russian Federation and associations abroad.

As for the issues raised regarding rural areas, there had been a road programme until 2009 that included the construction of roads and the Government undertook everything that in it power to improve the living standards of the rural population.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

ION DIACONU, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Kazakhstan, in preliminary concluding observations, said that Kazakhstan had provided very clear answers to many queries and that the Committee had learned much about the efforts undertaken or envisaged by the Government to improve the human rights situation in Kazakhstan. While the most pressing issue was to continue educating all citizens on the need for inter-ethnic and inter-religious dialogue, social and economic causes to the witnessed problems also needed to be given more attention in order to avoid conflicts. It seemed that the Government of Kazakhstan had already started analysing problems from that point of view, and it was encouraged to continue dealing with challenges in that direction.

Kazakhstan also needed to give special attention to areas where people of diverse ethnic groups were living in great numbers, Mr. Diaconu said. Kazakhstan offered a good example of a State with different state languages and ethnic communities, and the Government should pursue its efforts to provide education in the mother tongues of the various ethnic groups as well as to ensure, to the greatest possible extent, the active participation of representatives of ethnic groups. Kazakhstan’s chairmanship of the OECD, as well as the project that Kazakhstan would host a summit for the organization, also offered many opportunities.


For use of the information media; not an official record


CERD10/012E