COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF EL SALVADOR

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the combined fourteenth and fifteenth periodic reports of El Salvador on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Presenting the report, Alfonso Avelar, Director of the Department of Indigenous Peoples of the Social Inclusion Secretariat of El Salvador, said that the policy of non recognition and trying to forget the indigenous people had ended under the current President. Changes had been made in policy and in so far as the State was financially able to do so, it would make material reparations. Mr. Avelar conceded that under past administrations, El Salvador had failed to meet the recommendations issued by this Committee. One step they had taken to remedy that situation was the establishment of the Social Inclusion Secretariat to generate the conditions that would permit the development and protection of the family, the elimination of distinct forms of discrimination and at the same time support the social inclusion and capacity building of indigenous women, children, youth and adults. The Social Inclusion Secretariat worked with the Secretary of Culture to build the necessary consensus for the formulation of public policies; in this way, the State hoped to meet its obligations that it had entered into under the Convention.

In his preliminary concluding remarks, Alexei Avtonomov, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of El Salvador, said that he hoped the concluding observations would be useful for El Salvador, not just in the preparation of future periodic reports, but also in drawing up new policies and measures taken by the Government in assisting indigenous peoples as it was obvious that the State was undergoing a profound change. Mr. Avtonomov noted that when a new Government attempted to break with past policies, especially the civil war period and the denial of the mere existence of descendents of people of African descent, this was an historical moment for El Salvador and the Committee would do whatever it could to assist the Government in its new policies, particularly with regard to the elimination of racial discrimination.

Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, the status of African descendents in the county; the need for disaggregated census data on the indigenous population; the rights of refugees and asylum seekers in the country; the issue of both moral and financial reparations to indigenous communities; laws regarding landholdings in the country; the harmonization of domestic law with international treaty law; the access of indigenous people and people of African descendent to healthcare and education; the right to self-determination for and prior consultation with indigenous communities; the economic, social and cultural rights of indigenous communities; and the progress made in ratifying certain international instruments.

The delegation of El Salvador included representatives from the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the office of the Secretary for Social Inclusion, and the Permanent Mission of El Salvador to the United Nations at Geneva.

The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the fourteenth and fifteenth periodic reports of El Salvador, which were presented in one document, at the end of its session, which concludes on 27 August.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to take up the combined eighteenth and nineteenth periodic reports of Iran (CERD/C/IRN/18-19).

Report of El Salvador

The combined fourteenth and fifteenth periodic reports of El Salvador, submitted in one document (CERD/C/SLV/14-15), says that El Salvador is firmly committed to abstaining from sponsoring, defending or supporting racial discrimination practiced by any persons or organizations. That commitment is attested by the country's laws, which include the Constitution, international treaties in force and secondary legislation. The Solidarity Network Programme is a national poverty reduction strategy implemented on the basis of a poverty map and focused direct assistance to families. The programme has been conducted in communities with indigenous presence and its goals include social integration and women's empowerment within the country's indigenous groups affected by extreme poverty. To that purpose and with technical support from the World Bank, the programme conducted, in 2005, social assessment aimed at launching an indigenous component for promoting indigenous participation and social inclusion in the social development and poverty reduction process. A plan of action resulting from the assessment includes measures for promoting the integration and active participation of indigenous persons residing in municipalities prioritized on the basis of the poverty map.

In line with the National Policy on Women and the related Plan of Action, particularly with regard to the area of culture, the Salvadoran Institute for the Development of Women, according to the Institute's report, has been developing, since 2002, activities aimed at raising awareness of the role played by indigenous women in preserving and safeguarding the country's culture and at promoting their creativity. In particular, the Salvadoran Institute for the Development of Women has been supporting initiatives which contribute to the integration of indigenous women in production and, consequently, to the improvement of the quality of their life. The strategic goal in this area consists of "enhancing the value of the cultural identity of Salvadoran women from a gender perspective" and is pursued through such activities as may, first, support and promote the role of indigenous women in preserving and safeguarding the country's culture; and, second, assist craftswomen in the preservation and creative, productive and commercial development of their craft. These activities are coordinated with initiatives in the areas of labour and integration into the production process and of agriculture, livestock breeding, fishing, aquiculture and food processing, with a view to encouraging rural women's economic participation and raising their status.

Presentation of Report

ALFONSO AVELAR, Director of the Department of Indigenous Peoples of the Social Inclusion Secretariat of El Salvador, a department under the President’s office, said that this report was prepared with multiple agencies including the Ministries of Public Health, Foreign Affairs and Justice as well as the Office of the Ombudsman, the Census Bureau and the Office for the Development of Women.

Mr. Avelar said that to provide historical context, he wanted to mention that in 1932 there was an uprising of indigenous people that led to the murder of 32,000 people. Those who survived were forced to buy new names, change their identities or leave El Salvador, change their dress, their speech and their customs because if they were identified they would have been punished or murdered. Since then, there have been other cases of murder and enforced disappearances of indigenous peoples as well as repression, including the massacre that occurred in 1983 and other grave instances of violence that occurred between 1980 and 1991.

Mr. Avelar went on to say that the indigenous people in El Salvador were not identifiable as being physically different as would be the case in other countries and in this sense they were “invisible” in El Salvador. Rather, they were identified by their customs, language, and their knowledge of traditional medicine.

The head of the delegation said that the policy of non recognition and trying to forget the indigenous people ended under the current President. Changes had been made in policy and in so far as the State was financially able to do so, it would make material reparations. The State was considering ratification of International Labour Organization Convention 162 and had asked for technical assistance in implementing the Convention.

The State was also working on gathering more reliable, disaggregated data on the indigenous population in the country, as the numbers they had now were not accurate. Before this study could be carried out however, there would have to be awareness raising campaigns as well as moral and financial reparations.

In terms of legislative developments, Mr. Avelar said the Social Inclusion Secretariat was working on a draft legislation that would define discrimination and thus broaden the law prohibiting discrimination to bring domestic legislation into line with the Convention. The State was also looking at constitutional reform for the defence of indigenous peoples’ rights that would recognize their right to self-determination, their language, culture, land and territory and their right to resources on these lands and archaeological and historical sites. The Ombudsman had also submitted draft legislation that recognized specific rights such as access and legalization of land, defining their own legal structures, and right to their language.

El Salvador had also recognized the competence of this Committee to receive communications from persons or groups of persons, and the State had established an open and frank dialogue with human rights bodies within the United Nations as well the Inter-American system.

In general, El Salvador was undergoing a marked transformation with respect to human rights, recognizing for example that indigenous peoples had rights and should not be considered assisted groups as they were by past governments.

The State was also holding the First National Indigenous Congress to be held in October. Another specific action the State was taking was to launch a pilot programme for birth registration which was being undertaken to ensure civil identity of indigenous peoples and to provide a birth certificate or other identity document so that people could become an important part of the State and exercise all the rights every citizen should have.

Mr. Avelar conceded that under past administrations, El Salvador had failed to meet the recommendations issued by this Committee. One step they had taken to remedy that situation was the establishment of the Social Inclusion Secretariat to generate the conditions that would permit the development and protection of the family, the elimination of distinct forms of discrimination and at the same time support the social inclusion and capacity building for indigenous women, children, youth and adults. The Social Inclusion Secretariat worked with the Secretary of Culture to build the necessary consensus for the formulation of public policies; in this way, the State hoped to meet its obligations that it had entered into under the Convention.

The State had also been considering a scheme to carry out prior consultations with indigenous communities regarding any proposed development by the Social Fund for Local Development. This was to ensure that these communities reaped the social and economic benefits of any development. In terms of land policy, there was no ethnic prerequisite for land transfer; the only rule was that one could not already own land as this programme was for landless peasants and farmers.

With regard to access to health services, Mr. Avelar said that the Government was in the process of implementing two projects, including a programme for access to healthcare for rural and marginalized urban areas to combat tuberculosis as well as a programme to extend the coverage of healthcare services. The State had also implemented a strategy to combat tuberculosis and HIV in precarious urban communities. These projects were undertaken in an effort to develop the basic principals of intersectorality, identify the social determinants of access to healthcare and the promotion of illness prevention and equity in healthcare. The new vision of the right to health recognized the need to provide conditions in which public health policy could be established and implemented. Mr. Avelar said that El Salvador had resisted the pull to mercantilize healthcare and the national healthcare system had been reoriented with a strategy aimed at primary health and integrated medicine on the family health model. The Government had increased its healthcare budget and the implementation of this new model began in July 2010.

Mr. Avelar then turned to the justice system in El Salvador by saying that there were nine homicides a day in El Salvador and this level of violence had overloaded the legal system and led to prison overcrowding. There were nineteen prisons in the penal system with the capacity to hold 8,110 inmates; as of June 2009 the prison population was 21,056 inmates. Youth gangs had been recognized as a complex problem that had its roots in poverty and social exclusion and required a multidisciplinary solution. Mr. Avelar said that significant challenges, such as appropriate public defence, remained for indigenous peoples coming before the nation’s courts.

In the realm of education, Mr. Avelar said that the State was promoting multiculturalism and democratic values in an attempt to raise appreciation for a multiethnic society and a country with the rule of law. Human rights education was taught in the schools and there was the revitalization of indigenous languages through a certificate programme for teachers who could instruct in these languages as well as training programmes for teachers and a pre-school immersion programme for children to learn the languages. The State had not given a priority to the revitalization of certain languages because they were considered extinct, so the Government focused on languages that were bordering on extinction or endangered.

Indigenous peoples had access to their sacred sites and they did not have to pay for this access and they could gain same day access to archaeological sites after getting a pass from the appropriate office. The use of these heritage sites was governed by laws of protection, which could limit access to certain structures for conservation reasons.

Mr. Avelar said there were challenges ahead, but the delegation looked forward to a frank dialogue with the Committee and its recommendations.

Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts

ALEXEI AVTONOMOV, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of El Salvador, said the report of El Salvador made no mention of some of the issues raised in the concluding observations on the country’s last report and it was unclear whether any measures were taken to overcome the issues the Committee expressed concerns about. The oral presentation answered some of these questions, but not all. There was also a lack of information on the implementation of legislation and legal provisions in the courts. If those provisions were not implemented then the Committee could not say they were pertinent.

Mr. Avtonomov said that not all elements of Article 1 of the Convention had been introduced in domestic legislation and he would appreciate any information that could be provided on this matter. He noted that positive legislative steps had been taken, including the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and approving a law regarding the protection of children and adolescents, but again more information was needed on the implementation of these laws.

Mr. Avtonomov was pleased to note measures taken to protect the Nahuat language, but wondered if other languages had been similarly protected. The information on indigenous people contained in the report was incomplete and often contradictory. The Committee would like information on the demographic distribution of indigenous people in the State party. Another problem had to do with indigenous peoples’ landholding, or lack thereof. There had been cases filed in which indigenous communities complained of contamination and sale of their lands. Mr. Avtonomov asked the delegation to please provide more information on the current status of these claims and legal actions including resolutions, decisions and solutions.

Mr. Avtonomov was pleased to see the First National Indigenous Congress that was planned for October. The Committee also took note of the indigenous administrations which was a good step forward and would be included in the final observations. However, he asked the delegation whether El Salvador planned to ratify relevant conventions concerning the right to education and the rights of indigenous peoples. These included regional instruments as well as United Nations and other international conventions.

The Committee Chairperson then opened the floor to questions from other Committee Members.

One Committee Expert asked about the forcible displacement of children and whether more information could be provided on that topic and what information the delegation could give the Committee about affirmative action and special measures that may have been implemented since the last periodic report. The Committee Member also expressed concern about hate speech and applicable laws because it seemed that the current law concerned the workplace and public employees and this did not seem to cover the full range of hate speech. The Committee Member went on to say that the discrepancies in census numbers for indigenous peoples could be due to the fact that some people might not want to come forward and be identified as a minority out of fear, not necessarily fear of the State, but of discrimination from other people. Also, the delegation spoke of violence against indigenous groups and how that was treated in history books and school texts. Concerning people who had changed their names after massacres and violence and wanted to change their name back, would they be required to pay the administrative fees involved in this change?

Another Committee Expert asked the delegation to elaborate on what the State party meant by “free determination” for indigenous people as the delegation had mentioned a municipal level effort that sounded very different from self-determination in the international law sense.

Another Committee Expert then asked about the discrepancy in the census number of indigenous peoples because the State report said these communities made up only .2 per cent of the population, whereas numbers from non-governmental organizations put the number at 10 to 13 per cent of the population. The Expert also pointed out that domestic law in El Salvador needed to be brought into harmonization with the Convention, including Article 4. In terms of access to Salvadoran citizenship, the Expert said the report seemed to indicate that preference for citizenship seemed to be given to people from other Central American countries and people of Spanish or Spanish American origin, and this provision was discriminatory according to the Convention. The periodic report also failed to address the situation of migrants in the country and violence against human rights defenders, and the Expert wanted to know what was being done to protect these groups. There was also nothing in the report about the economic, social and political status of people of African descent in the country and the Committee Expert wanted more information on this community.

The next Committee Expert to speak thanked the delegation for its report, just four years after its last periodic report was presented. It was noted however, that no non-governmental organizations were consulted in the drafting of this report and the Committee Expert asked whether in the future non-governmental organizations would be invited to participate in the preparation of such reports. The Expert noted that according to the report there were no cases of racial discrimination, no racist groups in the country and no racial discrimination at the public service level, but was that the reality on the ground as this Expert believed that no country was above racial discrimination. As a final question, this Expert asked what adjustments had been made in the justice system to adapt it to the needs of indigenous peoples.

The next Committee Member to speak welcomed the self-critical approach by the delegation and the openness to international scrutiny, but wanted to know if there was any information on people of African descent as it would be useful in determining the full extent of racial discrimination in the country. The Committee Expert was curious to know if there were land rights for people of African descent or collective land rights for this group. Also, the Committee Member asked what the consequences were for someone infringing on the right to equal treatment.

Another Committee Member said that when he read the written report he was under the impression that nothing had changed in the four years since the last periodic report, but the oral presentation given by the delegation today showed that the change was extraordinary and the meeting was worthwhile. However, there were still a few things that were missing, including information on people of African descent. The Committee Member said it would also be helpful to have an update on which draft laws had become law and the progress of their implementation.

The next Committee Expert asked about the preservation of heritage locations of the Mayan people. The Expert also asked for context for the census numbers that were available; for example did the majority of indigenous people live in rural or urban areas and did they pursue traditional means of production? Also, did these groups have access to the decision making process, did they enjoy freedom of expression concerning projects implemented through the Government, did they own land and was it under traditional law or through statutory law?

Response by Delegation

The delegation began addressing the questions raised by Committee Members on the issue of identifying indigenous people because many times on the outside people did not appear to be indigenous and this complicated many issues. In terms of the census numbers, the delegation understood that the census was not designed to identify people of indigenous and African descent, this was why the State had taken the United Nations Population Fund up on its offer to conduct a study in 2012 at a cost of 10 to 12 million USD; El Salvador was a poor country, but it was making an effort. It would take months just to formulate the questionnaire because the Government did not want to replicate the mistakes of the past by handing out poorly designed questionnaires with poorly worded questions.

In terms of the preparation of the report, the delegation said it was drafted in consultation with civil society groups. People also actively and regularly demonstrated in the country and these demonstrators could make their voices heard without fear of reprisals from security forces or military personnel.

With regard to questions on landholding, the delegation began with some background information to provide context on the current state of affairs in El Salvador and the challenges faced by the new Government. When Spanish colonizers arrived in El Salvador, they quickly realized that there was no gold or diamonds, but there was rich land which indigenous farmers cultivated and the Spanish realized this was important indeed. Indigenous peoples had a sacred relationship with the land and the crop of maize was very important to their lives; this relationship was not understood by Spaniards or later by Creoles. Indigenous communities farmed on communal lands and other lands belonged directly to municipalities. The effect of this long seated phenomenon was a change in farming and cultivation methods and it became difficult to discern the long established relationship between indigenous people and the land, and the lands went from communal holdings to private persons. This change in land ownership led to single owners controlling large tracts of land. This in turn spawned a movement by the privileged classes to change the traditional land holding ways and to appropriate communal lands, especially when the coffee crop was introduced. From 1872 to 1875, the first revolts over the land issue took place. In 1882 a law was passed which declared the land around municipalities would in fact become private property and these owners could use these lands for growing coffee. The law had several clauses, one of which stated that the cost of owning such lands would be very cheap, 3 pesos per hectare, and this meant that the privileged classes bought well situated land at bargain basement prices. Consequently, all the indigenous communities that had benefited from that land took a back seat in society and were reduced to an almost indigent level. One began to see the first signs of protest against this state of affairs and it sowed the seeds for the revolt of 1932.

The point of this history was to explain how these actions changed the course of the country and that of the indigenous people as well; this history was not restricted to El Salvador, but many countries found themselves in this predicament. It was much more troublesome for El Salvador, however because it was a small State and thus land was much more valuable.

Concerning the political will of the Government to adhere to International Labour Organization Convention 169, the delegation said its ratification was one of the main tasks that was pending before the Government. The Government was well aware of the ethnic and cultural heritage of indigenous peoples and was determined to recognize their rights, and the proper measures and consultations were underway to ratify this Convention.

On the question of preference given to certain nationalities in obtaining Salvadoran citizenship, the delegation said it was not true that some people received a preference, but there was a Central American Federation that was dissolved in 1839 which would have given some people of Central America El Salvadoran citizenship by birth, but there were no cases to which this was applicable now.

The delegation said indigenous people were included in the mandate of the Social Inclusion Secretariat for strategic reasons, not reasons of vulnerability, which allowed for better coordination and more efficient outreach. Indigenous people were not obligated to establish non-governmental organizations, but if they were going to receive funds for their work then they needed to establish an association with proper bookkeeping for accountability issues and to combat money laundering.

On the question of whether programmes being carried out were federal or state initiatives, the delegation said the President met with all stakeholders so that policies could be enacted on the state level versus the federal level.

The delegation then gave an example of programmes that were making headway in different sectors of society such as: the school kit programme which provided uniforms, school kits and food to public school students in both rural and urban areas to help combat school dropout rates; pensions for retired and elderly persons; a programme to provide fertilizers and seed to families in regions with extreme poverty; healthcare coverage plans; social security for domestic workers; and free, universal public education.

The delegation noted that due to the August holiday, it had proved difficult to reach people in the capital city yesterday or today to gather information with which to answer all the questions the Committee had raised, but the State remained committed to answering all questions put before it and would respond in writing with further information.

Further Questions Posed by Experts

A Committee Member asked questions about a report issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in El Salvador. One of the report’s findings was that measures had not been taken to help realize the full economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights of indigenous peoples. What was being done to remedy this? The report also said that there was no specific mention of the rights of indigenous people in the Constitution. Was there any movement underway to change the Constitution to recognize the rights of indigenous people? In terms of the process of reparations, was there an investigation underway into the assassination of Archbishop Romero and was there any movement to abolish amnesty laws as had been done in Argentina, to prosecute those responsible for human rights violations?

Another Expert then asked if there was a national institute for human rights in El Salvador and if so, how did it interact with the Government? The Expert then asked about immigration into El Salvador, and what effect, if any, this had on the African population in the country, as the previous periodic report said that there was no African descendent population in the country.

In terms of preferential citizenship, a Committee Member noted that no other country from this region had ever mentioned this Central American Federation as a justification for granting citizenship on a preferential basis so something needed to be done to rectify this situation. The Committee Member also noted that El Salvador had adopted a number of recommendations suggested after their Universal Periodic Review in the Human Rights Council, including the protection of human rights defenders. What was being done to advance these recommendations?

Another Committee Member asked about the access people of African descent enjoyed to health and education services.

Another Expert asked the delegation if it could elaborate on the distinction between affirmative action measures and the rights of indigenous people, as the recognition of these rights and affirmative measures were two separate things.

Another Expert then took the floor to ask about laws against hate speech as well as anti-discrimination statutes in the country.

A Committee Expert pointed out that Committee members should not continue to ask questions based on the periodic report which was submitted by the previous Government, but rather they should base their questions on the oral presentation given by the head of the delegation. Since there had been a change in Government since the report was written, the delegation had made clear that they did not agree with many of the figures and information given in that report and that the new Government and President took a completely different view on indigenous rights and the approach to the elimination of racial discrimination in the country.

The Committee Chairperson responded that while this was true, the report still contained useful information and the answers provided by the delegation to questions based on this report were also very useful. Another Expert pointed out that their questions were not only about the written report, but about structural matters such as data collection, how State law was put into practice, the implementation of the Convention, the process of legislation adoption and ratification and other matters that applied irrespective of the Government in place.

ALEXEI AVTONOMOV, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of El Salvador, raised a question about the status of refugees in El Salvador. The majority of the 66 people granted refugee status were from Colombia and Ecuador and he wanted to know when was it possible to acquire refugee status and what was the procedure for these asylum seekers. How much time did it take to receive such status and while awaiting a decision were people allowed to work, where did they live and what happened if they were denied refugee status?

Replies by Delegation

Responding to those questions and others, the delegation said it was very difficult to change legislation as draft laws had to be adopted by two successive legislative assemblies, but despite these difficulties there were changes underway to bring the Constitution in line with the Convention’s definition of discrimination. With regard to moral reparations, the President had apologized to the Salvadoran people for the assassination of Archbishop Romero. In terms of abolishing the amnesty laws, the draft legislation to do so had to be passed by a second legislative assembly.

The delegation said that it could not defend what was indefensible and thus it could not defend previous reports submitted to the Committee because it felt they were invalid. So in terms of the current periodic report prepared by the previous Government which stated that African people did not exist in El Salvador, this was not correct and in the next census the State would rectify this problem by including a line to quantify the number of African descended people in the country. The delegation said that there was immigration into the country and that workers came from Nicaragua and many of them were of African descent. Salvadorans had emigrated, leaving room in the country for immigrants from other lands to come in and work in the country on a legal basis as migrant workers.

The delegation said that many of the reforms recommended by the Universal Periodic Review were in the process of being adopted, but this took time and had to go through the proper legislative process.

In terms of citizenship, the delegation said that no country received preferential treatment and it was not easier to get citizenship if one was from a certain country; everyone had to follow the rules and meet the requirements. There were regional agreements in place however, which allowed people from some Central American countries to move within the region with ease, but this did not have anything to do with the naturalization process.

The delegation said there were African refugees in the country and there was no racial discrimination in their access to healthcare and education services. Children of immigrants received healthcare and education on the same level as all other students.

Regarding the question of indigenous rights versus affirmative action, the delegation said the Government viewed indigenous people as rights holders rather than people to be assisted, as was the case under previous Governments. To say that the Government would adhere to International Labour Organization Convention 169 was to state an intention, but saying when this would happen was a different thing as there were many stages needed for ratification and implementation, but the delegation hoped to be able to update the Committee in its next periodic report on its progress in this regard.

The delegation then said that it would send the Committee further information on hate speech and anti-discrimination legislation at a later date.

On the issue of refugee status, the delegation said asylum seekers could not be common criminals and had to have a well founded fear of persecution if they returned to their native land. Before being given refugee status, people were awarded special protection status which allowed them to work immediately and there was nothing to prevent them from freely circulating within the State’s borders.

Closing Remarks

ALFONSO AVELAR, Director of the Department of Indigenous Peoples of the Social Inclusion Secretariat of El Salvador, in closing remarks, thanked the Committee for its numerous questions which required speedy and appropriate replies. The Committee could rest assured that the next periodic report would be radically different from what the Committee had received in the past. There was no recognition of indigenous peoples before and there was no census with appropriate information with disaggregated data on the indigenous population. The indigenous community had to blend in with the general population for historical reasons, but they were throughout the country in all walks of life.

ALEXEI AVTONOMOV, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of El Salvador, in preliminary concluding remarks, said that the oral presentation was very different from what was contained in the written periodic report, but the Committee used that document simply as a basis for initiating the dialogue with the delegation, so while it had value it was also worth saying that all the recommendations and concluding observations should be based not only on the periodic report, but on information received from the delegation as a whole. The information provided was most valuable and would be used in preparing concluding observations. Mr. Avtonomov hoped the concluding observations would be useful for El Salvador, not just in the preparation of future periodic reports, but also in drawing up new policies and measures taken by the Government in assisting indigenous peoples as it was obvious that the State was undergoing a profound change. Mr. Avtonomov said that he also hoped that the Committee’s recommendations would be useful in bringing into line relations between different racial groups in the State party. He noted that when a new Government attempted to break with past policies, especially the civil war period and the denial of the mere existence of descendents of people of African descent, this was an historical moment for El Salvador and the Committee would do whatever it could to assist the Government in its new policies, particularly with regard to the elimination of racial discrimination.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CERD10/019E