COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS CONSIDERS REPORT OF URUGUAY

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has considered the combined third and fourth periodic report of Uruguay on how that country implements the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Introducing the report of Uruguay, Ricardo Gonzalez, Director General for Political Affairs at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, said that Uruguay was working very hard to protect economic, social and cultural rights via its public policies and was coordinating these policies with civil society. Uruguay had ratified all principal human rights instruments and their Optional Protocols. They would also soon send to the legislative authorities for their approval the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the Optional Protocol to the Convention on Persons with Disabilities. Turning to the context that had recently affected the economic, social and cultural rights in Uruguay, he said that it had been marked by the most profound economic crisis that had affected the country in its entire history. It had created a threat and had resulted in the expansion of poverty and extreme poverty, as well as emigration, particularly of young people. This had been the most serious threat to Uruguay in its efforts to ensure the protection of economic, social and cultural rights in the last century.

Among the questions and issues raised by Committee Experts were questions on the exact role, competencies and functions of the national human rights institution, how it would select its working topics, the criteria for the selection of its members and what it would concretely do with cases of human rights violations. Other questions were asked on the legal status of the Covenant; on discrimination against women and Afro-descendents and anti-discriminatory measures, in particular with regard to Afro-Uruguayans and indigenous communities; the reform of the penal code; and the minimum age for marriage. Experts also touched upon unemployment; minimum wage; the rights of migrant workers; child labour; environment policy and biodiversity; the situation in prisons; Government activities with regard to reproductive health; the right to health; the criminalization of domestic violence; and adoption.

In concluding remarks, Mr. Gonzalez said the Committee’s recommendations would be favorably received by the Uruguayan Government. The 2002 crisis had threatened the economic, social and cultural rights of a majority of Uruguayans. But in the last decade, Uruguay had also made more progress than ever in its history.

In concluding remarks, Jaime Marchan Romero, Committee Chairperson, said that the Committee had been pleased with the presence of the delegation. It had been a very useful exercise marked by frankness. The recommendations that would be issued by the Committee would be aimed at helping Uruguay to further implement economic, social and cultural rights.

The Colombian delegation also included representatives from the Ministry of Education and Culture, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Social Development and the Permanent Mission of Uruguay in Geneva. The discussion on the report of Uruguay was held over three meetings.

The next meeting of the Committee will be at 3 p.m. this afternoon, when it will begin its consideration of the third periodic report of the Dominican Republic (E/C.12/DOM/3). The Committee is scheduled to consider the report over three meetings, concluding on Thursday, 4 November at 6 p.m.
Report of Uruguay

The combined third and fourth periodic report of Uruguay (E/C.12/URY/3-4) states that efforts to achieve the effective enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights have been maintained despite the prolonged economic crisis that erupted in 2002. The crisis of the financial system was accompanied by a drop in international prices for exports, drought, the reappearance of foot and mouth disease, which affected the agro-industrial chain, and an increase in the price of oil, for which the country is entirely dependent on imports. Uruguay became the second most highly indebted country in the world in relation to its gross domestic product at a time of high international interest rates. Output and exports declined, unemployment rose to 17 per cent in 2002, poverty to 31 per cent and extreme poverty to 4 per cent. The number of emigrants to first-world countries (largely young people and skilled labour) shot up, with the usual impact that such phenomena have on the social and demographic structure of a country whose population is already aging. After the adoption of a series of polices, by the end of 2008, the GDP growth rate was 8.9 per cent, the national unemployment rate had dropped to the lowest levels on record and the annual inflation rate was 9.21 per cent. Household income has returned to almost pre-crisis levels. The country’s strategy has been based on the coordination of economic policy with social policy through a set of institutional reforms and public spending priorities. As a result, poverty dropped from 31 per cent in 2004 to 21 per cent in 2008 and extreme poverty from 4 to 1.7 per cent over the same period. The impact of the economic and financial crisis, and its social consequences, has not been completely reversed – much remains to be done – but the progress made has been considerable.

Despite the efforts made, inequalities between men and women and other forms of multiple discrimination persist in various spheres and are reflected in the daily lives of many women in both the public and the private sphere. In the public sphere, women’s extremely limited access to positions of power is one of the country’s main weaknesses. Although equality of political rights was enshrined in Uruguay in 1932, only 10.8 per cent of parliamentarians elected in the 2004 national elections were women. Generally speaking, women achieve higher levels of qualification than men and the number of women graduating from university in recent years has been twice that of men. Even so, women face higher unemployment rates than men and phenomena associated with employment segregation and wage discrimination persist. Horizontal and vertical segregation of the labour market adversely affects women workers in Uruguay, who continue to be relegated to low quality occupations. In general, they are still excluded from management positions and, primarily in the private sector, are paid significantly less than men for the same work.

The analysis of the housing situation proposed in the Five-Year Housing Plan 2005 2009 establishes that the main problem is access and permanence, rather than an actual shortage of housing. This problem is linked to the drop in families’ incomes, particularly as a result of the 2002 financial crisis, which has had a major impact on fundraising by the National Housing Fund and on the ability of households in receipt of housing loans to keep up with their payments. The crisis caused the collapse of programmes aimed at middle-income and low income sectors of the population. Since 2005, Uruguay has been promoting a new urban housing policy designed to enable all population sectors to access and remain in decent housing.

Presentation of Report

RICARDO GONZALEZ, Director General for Political Affairs at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, introducing the report, said that Uruguay was working very hard to protect economic, social and cultural rights via its public policies and was coordinating these policies with civil society. The delegation’s presence before the Committee was an exercise in which Uruguay was involved with a great deal of satisfaction.

Mr. Gonzalez highlighted the unfailing commitment that Uruguay had for human rights and for the international system of human rights protection. The respect for international law and the support for multilateralism were the pillars of Uruguayan democracy. Uruguay had ratified all principal human rights instruments and their Optional Protocols. They would also soon send to the legislative authorities for their approval the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the Optional Protocol to the Convention on Persons with Disabilities. These were two very important Optional Protocols that Uruguay had already signed.

Uruguay also had a standing open invitation to all human rights Special Rapporteurs and they recently had received the visit of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, said Mr. Gonzalez. Next year, the Special Rapporteur on drinking water and sanitation would also be visiting the country.

Mr. Gonzalez said this commitment by Uruguay of upholding human rights allowed him to highlight the spirit in which Uruguay had submitted its report. The Committee could count on the full support of Uruguay.

Turning to the context that had recently affected the economic, social and cultural rights in Uruguay, Mr. Gonzalez said that it had been marked by the most profound economic crisis that had affected the country in its entire history. It had created a threat and had resulted in the increase of poverty and extreme poverty, as well as emigration, particularly of young people. This had been the most serious threat to Uruguay in its efforts of ensuring the protection of economic, social and cultural rights in the last century. They believed that it was important to provide this context to the Committee to understand what had affected their country.

Focusing on some aspects which he believed were worth highlighting, Mr. Gonzalez said that the policies applied as of 2005 in response to the crisis had been tantamount to a national emergency. A two year emergency plan had been put in place to help the most disadvantaged and ensure that they would not slide into extreme poverty. This plan had been replaced by another one in 2008. They had also seen the creation of a Ministry of Social Development in 2005. The new national budget provided for a 33 per cent increase of resources for it. A National Council for Social Policies had also been created.

Listing a whole series of new bodies that had been created over the past year, Mr. Gonzalez focused on the approval in 2008 of a national human rights institution. This would be in line with the Paris Principles and should be up and running by next year.

Health and education had been areas of particular attention in their policies over the past years, as well as housing issues, said Mr. Gonzalez. Expenditure in public education went up from 3 to 4.5 per cent of their Gross Domestic Product between 2005 and 2008. A plan had been put in place to give each child a computer throughout primary and secondary education and Uruguay was now one of the few countries that had achieved this.

Uruguay was also undertaking ambitious health reforms, noted Mr. Gonzalez. They were currently integrating a universal coverage system, doing away with the factors of unfairness and inequality which had affected the country until now.

A key part of their national policy had to do with the employment policy. Uruguay now had one of the lowest levels of unemployment in all its history: 6.2 per cent, said Mr. Gonzalez.

It was the opinion of the Government that key areas were to combat poverty and extreme poverty, which were the major threat against social cohesion. A broad range of social programmes had been put in place and they had seen many important results. Extreme poverty had decreased from 5 to 1.5 per cent, said Mr. Gonzalez. These achievements were far from making them complacent; the priority of the Government was to continue combating poverty and extreme poverty and its aim was to completely eradicate extreme poverty and reduce poverty rates to one digit.

In all these areas they had seen very appreciable results, said Mr. Gonzalez. It was necessary for the Government to complement economic policies together with measures improving income distribution and ensuring equal opportunities.

Questions by Experts on Articles One to Five of the Covenant

Addressing issues linked to articles one to five of the Covenant, Experts asked questions on the competencies of the national human rights institution. What would be its exact role? Would it be a role of consultation with the Government or would it be able to receive complaints, as was the case in other Latin American countries?

An Expert said that while the information presented showed that the theory was quite in line with the Covenant, there was often a considerable gap between theory and practice. For example, what was the legal status of the Covenant? The constitution was silent on this subject. A Supreme Court decision said that international treaties had the rank of the constitution. However, there was no information in the report on any case law that was in line with this decision. Could the delegation provide information on such cases?

Another Expert touched upon the structural discrimination against women and Afro-descendents. For example, there was a provision which said that divorced women could not marry another man for a period of 300 days after their divorce. Was there a similar law for men? If not this was discriminatory against women.

Again on the national human rights institution, what concrete functions did it have? Would it be able to select its work topics by itself or would these be decided upon by the Parliament? Also what were the criteria and procedures for the selection of its board?

One Expert noted that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had expressed concern about insufficient information on anti-discriminatory measures, in particular with regard do Afro-Uruguayans and indigenous communities. Could the delegation provide more information on this, including on the situation of women in these communities.

An Expert noted that there were still some archaic provisions of Napoleonic age in Uruguay. There had been a proposed reform on the penal code in 2005, had it been approved? Did this reform take into account more modern provisions or did it also include archaic provisions?

Another Expert said the Committee had information that there were people above and less than 18 years of age detained together in prisons. People under 18 years of age had to be held separately from adults. Could the delegation shed light on this?

Response by Delegation

Answering those questions and others, the delegation said, on the national human rights institution, that it had been created in a law that had been passed in 2008. It had taken almost five years of dialogue with the civil society and political parties with Parliamentary representation to draft this law. The institution would be able to deal with all human rights recognized in the national legal system as well as those that were recognized in international human rights instruments. It would thus also be its task to address economic, social and cultural rights.

The institution had an advisory role, in line with the Paris Principles, said the delegation. But it was also competent in taking individual or collective complaints with regard to violations of human rights. Unlike other human rights institutions with a single Ombudsman, they had opted for a collective design: a group of five individuals serving on the board and acting as independent experts. Two of them would deal with complaints of alleged human rights violations. The other three would be tasked with drawing up public human rights policy. All five persons would rotate in their functions.

The delegation said that they would also need to be careful to ensure the independence of the institution and that of its members, and also to ensure that the institution had a sufficient budget. The institution’s independent experts, State agencies and accredited non-governmental organizations should also meet once a year as a national human rights assembly. This would ensure public participation in national human rights policies.

On how they selected the members of the national human rights institution’s board, the delegation indicated that they would be elected by both legislative chambers meeting together by a two-third majority in two rounds of vote. Further, a person having served on the board would not be able to exercise any political activity in the three years after leaving the institution. As it was vital that the election process of the board was not polluted by electoral processes in the country, and as Uruguay had been in an electoral campaign since 2008, they had waited until this year to start the process of budgetary allocation for the institution.

On the legislative situation in Uruguay, the delegation said that 44 years had elapsed since the constitution had been approved. Apart from some aspects related to electoral issues, the constitution had not substantially been changed since then. This fact was also linked to the dictatorship period, during which the constitution had not been applied at all.

The delegation said that there was a need to start a constitutional debate in Uruguay to ensure that it was in line with international human rights norms. As stated by an Expert, the Supreme Court had ruled that, based on Article 72 of the Uruguayan constitution, the human rights treaties had a constitutional ranking in the country. However, one could not describe this as recurrent practice in first instance courts.

The delegation also said that Uruguay had a lengthy history of codification; they had inherited the French and the Napoleonic code. The legislation and codification of 1866 was still in place. This created some difficulties. The 300 day period during which divorced or widowed women were prevented from marrying again was a nineteenth century codification of criminal law. These were norms they had to adjust.

Further, the delegation indicated that there were no legal differences between children born in marriage and out of wedlock. This had been passed into law and these children had exactly the same rights.

Turning to issues linked to discrimination, the delegation said that as part of its Universal Periodic Review in 2009, Uruguay had committed itself to set up a national plan against discrimination and racism, which was currently being drafted. The State had thus recognized that there were discriminatory practices in Uruguay.

On Afro-descendants, the delegation indicated that about 9 per cent of the population identified themselves as Afro-descendents. As regard to unemployment, the situation of Afro-descendents showed that they had higher unemployment rates than persons that were not of Afro-descent. This was the same in the figures on poverty and extreme poverty. While 3.3 per cent of Afro-descendents were affected by extreme poverty, only 1.3 per cent of people of non-Afro-descendents were affected by it. Being of Afro-descent thus meant that one could be twice as likely to be poor compared to people not of Afro-descent.

On education there was a real gap in inequality which they should cover in affirmative polices, said the delegation. They had a problem with drop outs in the secondary schools. There also, it affected more people of African-descent than others. Uruguay was currently designing a scholarship programme, where cash transfer would stimulate attendance in public education centers, said the delegation.

Turning to indigenous people, the delegation indicated that they did not have territorial based indigenous communities in Uruguay. However there were people recognizing indigenous ascendance. These had formed social organizations and associations to defend the cultural heritage and the legacy of the indigenous communities that had existed at the time of the colonization.

Last year the Government had adopted a law establishing 11 April as the memory day of the Charrua people, to recall the sad history of what had happened to this ethnic group. The State recognized that in the nineteenth century actions had been taken that had led to the extermination of this community. Further, the mortal remains of some of the Charrua people that had been exiled to Paris to be shown to the public there had been brought back to Uruguay last year.

On discrimination against women in Uruguay, the delegation indicated that there was a National Institution of Women. It was tasked with putting up cross-cutting measures throughout public polices and was concerned with eliminating barriers facing women. There were still issues with regard to the equality of opportunity for women. There were also still big differences with regard to equal pay for equal work. On the participation of women in political life, they had recently adopted a law on quotas in electoral lists.

Turning to the situation of migrants, the delegation said that Uruguay had approved a law in 2008 addressing the situation of migrants. Uruguay was a country of immigrants and migrants. Migrants were another minority in the country. There was no difference in the treatment of the people based on their origin and whether or not they had papers.

The delegation also indicated that adults were never deprived of their freedom together with minors. Places of detention for adults and juveniles did not share the same premises, nor the same building.

Follow-up Questions

Raising some follow-up questions, Experts wondered what the national human rights institution would do with cases of human rights violations. What would the institution do concretely, would it draw a report? Also, was its budget fully dependent on the Government? How could the institution be independent then if this was the case?

One Expert also wondered why the Civil Code used the term “natural children” in opposition to children born out of wedlock. Also, what was the status of ratification of International Labour Organization Convention 169?

Answers by Delegation

Answering these questions and others, the delegation said that national human rights institutions could not encroach in the legislative or judicial spheres. When receiving a complaint that might involve an offence, it would be the obligation of the national human rights institution to pass on this information to the competent judicial authorities. If it did not so, the public official not doing so would commit an offence.

On the institution’s budget, the delegation said that ideally they would have wanted it to be a totally free and autonomous body. But this would have required a constitutional reform and this could not have been done in a short time frame. Thus, the institution was administratively dependent on the legislative branch. A future constitutional reform could however make the institution a fully independent one. There was however no other source of funding for it than the State budget.

On children born out of wedlock and those born in marriage, the delegation said that there was equal treatment between both. But their nineteenth century civil code talked about “natural children”, which was an anachronistic term.

Questions by Experts on Article Six to Nine

Turning to articles six through nine, Experts said that they were struck by the figure of unemployment: 6.2 per cent, which was pretty low. How had this figure been obtained? Did it include the informal sector? How was this figure split between men and women? On work in prisons, was it optional? And how was it remunerated? On minimum wage, how was its level determined? Did it allow a worker and his or her family to enjoy the basic food basket? On migrant workers, the delegation had indicated that those had equal access to employment and social security. What happened to migrants who had no work contracts? Were the minimum pension amounts enough for people?

An Expert noted that the United Nations Children's Fund had expressed worries about child labour in Uruguay and that the State party’s report stated that a survey on the issue was planned. Were the results of that survey already known?

Another Expert said that non-governmental organizations had raised several issues related to labour laws, such as the absence of norms of leave for an ill child or the inadequate legislation for preventing sexual harassment at work.

Response by Delegation

Answering these questions, the delegation said that the Inspector General for Labour was among the members of the delegation. On the level of unemployment, he said that they had reached an historic level. The informal sector existed for reasons of survival and they had to look at it from the point of view of inclusion. They had to ensure that this sector became part of the formal sector, so that people could enjoy all their rights. The Government was also monitoring enterprises that employed workers in the informal sector and that did not respect certain health standards.

As to unemployment and the difference between men and women, the delegation indicated that there was indeed a difference between both groups. However, they were happy to inform the Committee that the unemployment of young women (under 25 years of age) had decreased.

Regarding employment in prisons, the delegation said that the Government had voted for an inspection system in the prison system. The number of prisoners working or studying had increased by threefold over the past five years. More than a third of the prisoners were working and about 80 per cent of them were being paid for their work. There were also projects to give prisoners access to social security.

The Ministry of Public Health also ensured that health services were covered in prisons. The delegation indicated that 70 per cent of the prison population was currently covered. The existence of health services in prisons was going to be further improved.

Turning to the labour laws related to cases of dismissal, the delegation indicated that the right to dismissal was limited by the law. It protected the activities of trade union workers and prohibited their dismissal. Pregnant women and mothers who had recently given birth were also protected against dismissals, as well as sick workers.

On the national minimum wage, the delegation said that it was true that it did not cover the basic basket. But there were also minimum wages by sector, which were fixed through tripartite negotiations. These were always above the national minimum wage. Tripartite committees were not only involved in minimum wages but also working in health and safety norms for each sector.

Turning to migrant work, the delegation said that the General Inspectorate was constantly checking whether migrant workers enjoyed the same level of rights as domestic workers.

On sexual harassment, the delegation said that there was a law which established sanctions against it. The law enabled the labour inspectorate to play an important role in this regard. It took in any complaints. The inspectorate was able to take immediate protective actions to help protect the victim. Irrespective of the fact that the victim wanted or not to go to the court, the Inspectorate had the possibility to issue fines.

With regards to the situation of women in the workplace, the delegation said that the labour inspectorate has been training inspectors and labour lawyers together with the Faculty of Psychology in identifying harassment against women at the workplace.

On health and safety at the workplace, the delegation said that a new list of vocational diseases had been issued. The insurance bank of the State would thus now also cover injuries such as repetitive strain injuries.

The delegation indicated that the retirement age for men and women was the same: 60 years of age. For women, each child up to the fifth gave a premium of one year in the payment of their pension contributions.

Follow-up Questions

In follow-up questions, Experts wondered whether there were minimum wages in the public service sector. Also, the State party’s report noted that there was a gap in public information and that laws were not properly known by people. Were there any programmes to address this?

Answer by Delegation

The delegation answered that there had been a government proposal for minimum salary for public servants, which was 1.5 times the national minimum wage salary.

Also there was a campaign to inform people about their rights, said the delegation.

Questions by Experts on Articles Ten to Twelve

Turning to articles ten to twelve of the Covenant, Committee Experts asked questions on the minimum age of marriage and the draft law which was in existence since 2009 regarding this issue. Had this law been adopted?

An Expert said he did not understand why indigenous and Afro-descendants and rural women still remained disproportionately affected by poverty. It was also a pity that no answers had been provided in the written answers on what steps had been taken by the State party to improve the housing situation in the country and what the legislation was regarding forced evictions. Also, there were no figures on the number of homeless people in the country.

Another Expert wondered how the Government was managing its environmental policy system. How was it able to get information to the citizens on rules and laws protecting the environment?

On territorial planning, an Expert noted that a law had been adopted in 2008 on territorial planning and sustained development. What was its aim? Was it aimed at rationalizing the population or rather at rationalizing the use of natural resources? Was this law a law for guidance providing a framework for territorial activities? It was very difficult to know whether it was a sort of general orientation law or more.

Also, had the country participated in the major conferences on environment and had it signed the major environmental conventions, asked the Expert.

On biodiversity, the report mentioned a law on this, noted an Expert. And to date there had been profound divergences as regards to the sovereignty of States with regard to genetic resources exploitation. Did Uruguay want to safeguard its biodiversity resources or had it passed contracts with other countries to exploit its resources?

Concerning overcrowding in prisons, what measures had been taken by the State party to remedy this situation, wondered another Expert. Turning to the global problem of drugs, what measures were being taken by Uruguay with regard to money laundering linked to drug trafficking? How did the State party deal with drug consumers? Did it act repressively against them or were users offered access to health services?

On reproductive health, according to information available to the Committee there were no plans to teach reproductive health, noted an Expert. Could the delegation provide more information? Further, what was the position of the State party with regards to abortion?

On the right to health, an Expert highlighted the Committee’s General Comment 14 which contained the list of the identified 29 essential drugs. How did the State party guarantee that these medicines were being provided in all parts of the country, especially in parts far away from larger cities?

An Expert also asked questions on the reported increase of use of the drug Ritalin to keep children calm. Could the delegation provide further information on this issue? On persons with disabilities, did they get all the support they needed?

One Expert wondered about the meaning of the draft bill on the minimum age for marriage, which said that 16 was the minimum age with consent and 18 the minimum age for marriage. What was the minimum age then? Also, when was the bill intended to be approved?

Further, was domestic violence criminalized in Uruguay? What was the sentence for it, wondered an Expert. What did the legislation say about the adoption of children? Could single men or women adopt children? What about unmarried couples? What specific information did the delegation have with regard to street children? Had there been any increase in the number of children and adolescents on the streets?

Another Expert said that there had been the case of a paper factory that had polluted a river and that this had had an impact on health. This case had even been brought to the International Court of Justice, what was the current status of this issue?

Response by Delegation

In its responses to the Committee, the delegation said, on the difference of opinion between Argentina and Uruguay on the setting up of a paper factory in Uruguayan territory, this case had been brought to the International Court of Justice. The ruling of the Court said that Uruguay had complied completely with environmental standards and that the plant could carry on operating. Argentina and Uruguay were currently working together to set up a new horizon to better govern this shared resource. A monitoring plan to monitor the plant was currently being drafted between both countries.

On the legislation regarding the crime of domestic violence, the delegation indicated that the current law did not cover serious injuries or homicide. The sentence for domestic violence could be of 6 to 24 months of prison. However, the minimum was above that of personal injury. The caseload of domestic violence had dropped over the past years, but it was not clearly understood why. New instruments and resources that were being allocated to the legal powers meant that cases would be better detected and that cases that were today not necessarily reaching the courts would do so in the future.

On the legal age for marriage, the delegation said that the legislation had established 12 as the minimum age of marriage for girls and 14 for boys. A bill had recently been introduced that would raise this to 16 years of age and 18 without parental consent. This had not been approved in the previous term of office and the bill would thus have to be resubmitted again.

On illegal occupation of land, the delegation said that it was true that there were irregular settlements in Uruguay, where 6 per cent of the country’s total population lived. The creation of irregular settlements had been strongly brought about by the financial crisis of 2002. This had led to marginalization due to the lack of sanitation, but also the lack of safety. Almost all of the country’s Departments bordering the Department of Montevideo had irregular settlements.

Over the last five years, they had been able to remove 20 per cent of the irregular settlements in the metropolitan area of Montevideo. This meant that they had to rethink their policy of how they should tackle this problem to eradicate these settlements. New programmes aimed at preventing the formation of settlements would be implemented, said the delegation. The law on territorial planning was one of these instruments. This was a key in the policies if they were to prevent the proliferation of these settlements. They had to work towards creating the right kind of social fabric.

On adoption and on whether single persons could adopt children, the delegation indicated that this was possible. A de facto union could also adopt children.

Concerning persons living in the street, the delegation indicated that there were about 1,000 of them in the metropolitan area of Montevideo, where 60 per cent of the population of the country lived. About 800 of them were being sheltered. The Government’s care strategy was to diversify the types of care, such as night shelter, day-dropping shelters and half-way houses, or transitional homes for sudden need. They were also looking after those who were psychologically ill.

The delegation also touched upon its strategies and plans with regard to social housing policy. One of the Government’s plans was to eradicate extreme poverty and radically decrease poverty and to improve the social housing of its people and ensure that there was sustainability. As of 2005, the State’s strategy had moved the country out of the financial crisis. As of 2010 they were not facing new challenges that had arisen with the depth and scope of the earlier changes. Their plan was now to increase wealth and better distribute it.

One of the national plans for relocation was aimed at improving the living conditions of the people, relocating those that were living in flood areas or polluted areas. The delegation also enumerated a long list of measures that were currently being taken and which illustrated the Government’s commitment to solve the housing problem in the country.

The delegation also said that the law on territorial planning and the Government’s housing policy were aimed at arriving at an environmentally sound sustainable development. The territorial planning act was tasked with creating an orderly process of territorial planning. The explicit goal of this system was to maintain and improve the quality of life of the people to ensure social integration and to make use of the natural and cultural resources of the country.

Further, the Act on regional planning had a number of guiding principles, the first being sustainable planning providing for social cohesion. In addition, the idea was to ensure that there was coordination among the different agents that were in charge of territorial planning. The ultimate goal of the Act was to put citizen’s participation in the process of drawing up, implementing, following-up, assessing as well as reviewing the instrument for territorial planning. The last goal of the Act was to reconcile economic development, environmental sustainability and social cohesion.

On environmental and sustainable development, the delegation said that drinking water and sanitation was a fundamental human right in Uruguay. This had been part of a public referendum in 1996. There was also a general law for the protection of the environment. It dealt with, inter alia, environmental education and environmental awareness among the general community.

Still with regard to the environment, the delegation said that they were also coordination and participation elements which included the non-governmental organizations. There was a national council which included the national department on drinking water, the national department for sanitation and the national department for territorial planning. The Government and civil society were equally participating in these.

The delegation said that they believed that there were enough guarantees in Uruguay to ensure that the country could make progress in a sustainable manner.

Concerning international environmental treaties, the delegation said that the one they still needed to sign was the one on biological diversity of Cartagena, which was currently before Parliament for approval. Uruguay had a long history of agricultural research and had had a moratorium on genetically modified organisms which was lifted in 2008.

Uruguay’s commitment with regard to environmental issues was very strong, said the delegation. They were chairing the negotiations on the future legal instrument on mercury and were hosting regional centers which dealt with hazardous waste and controlled chemical products.

Concerning climate change, Uruguay had always been committed to it from an early stage, said the delegation, especially in the International Panel on Climate Change and the World Meteorological Organization. Uruguay was well aware of the possible impact of climate change on their coastal strip and they were not waiting for others to act on their behalf. In 2009 a national plan to respond to climate change had been put in place.

Further, Uruguay had negative net emission figures. This was due to the use of their land. They had a high level of absorption. Uruguay was an agricultural and livestock country and was thus also looking at the issue of methane emissions. They were also looking at how they could make best use of biogas, said the delegation.

Up to 2008 Uruguay did not have any protected areas. Since then, they had been looking at building up a system of protected areas. They now had seven protected areas and an additional four would join that list in the coming months, said the delegation. The total surface of protected areas was currently less than one per cent of the country’s overall territory. A medium term plan had been created to manage these protected areas. They had also created a national park employee body. The system aimed at being the main one protecting Uruguay’s biodiversity.

The delegation said that Uruguay had taken a very long time to discover the wealth of their biodiversity. For example, although they were 40 times smaller than Brazil, they had 25 per cent of the bird species that existed in Brazil.

Turning to the health reform currently taking place in the country, the delegation said that they had started with a very fragmented health system which was functioning in a quite unfair manner. They had brought about a shift in their healthcare system, generating a shift in management and funding. Priority was attached to the primary healthcare system. Concerning funding, it was based on contributions of employees and employers based on each one’s capacity to pay. The aim had been to substantially increase investment per system user.

The State had worked to ensure the same quality of healthcare level between the public and private health sector, ensuring that there was not a system for the rich and one for the poor but that there was a truly inclusive programme. The delegation said that the State was the protector of rights and the State had regained its capacity to regulate that sector.

Concerning reproductive health, condoms and other contraceptives were fully accessible to the population and these could be obtained directly from the State, said the delegation

Abortion however was a sensitive issue. In Uruguay abortion was punishable. The criminal code penalized abortion with deprivation of liberty. Both the woman who underwent abortion and the person who carried out the abortion were penalized. However, there was a whole system of exclusions and mitigation factors to those practices, said the delegation. These included instances where abortion had been carried out to save one’s honour as a result of rape; in serious health circumstances; or for reasons of economic constraints.

Further, the delegation indicated that the legislation on abortion was currently being looked at by the Congress with the idea to eliminate the criminal penalty for carrying out abortion. But there was no plan to legalize it or any State policy to promote it. The State was first of all trying to promote responsible sexual activities.

Concerning drug consumption, the State had an ongoing policy of combating addiction, said the delegation. Their policy was a preventive one and not a repressive one. Prevention focused above all on young people. Consumption itself was not penalized.

Turning to the use of the medicine Ritalin, the delegation said that it was a medicine for children with hyper-activity or who were suffering from attention deficit order and depression or chronic fatigue. In Uruguay Ritalin was regulated as a psycho-pharmaceutical product. It was issued on a prescription by a psychiatrist. There was currently an increase in demand for that drug and the Government had started looking at the supply of that drug.

Concerning retroviral therapies for HIV/AIDS patients, the delegation said that they were aiming at achieving universal access to treatment but that as a developing country they had had to make use of bioequivalents because of the high cost of the retroviral therapies. Uruguay had also repeatedly requested the Global Fund’s assistance in drawing up preventive strategies.

Follow-up questions

In follow-up questions, an Expert said that the information given by the delegation on housing had rather been of visionary nature and a futuristic one. Could the delegation give information on the current status in this area?

On territorial planning, the delegation had said that the law had been based on planning. But what sort of planning was it, asked an Expert. Was it of an imperative nature or was it rather encouraging planning?

Answer by the Delegation

Answering these questions, the delegation said that the territorial planning law was not based on planning but that it promoted planning. It coordinated and brought together all the different actors so that they could properly prepare territorial planning.

Concerning the programme for the integration of people living in irregular settlements, the delegation said that between 2005 and 2009 $ 63 million had been invested in this area.

Questions by Experts on Articles Thirteen to Fifteen

Taking up articles thirteen to fifteen, an Expert said that the State party’s report identified areas where further work needed to be done. For example, it highlighted the fact that 7.7 per cent per of the rural population was still illiterate. What had happened to the State party’s plans to eradicate illiteracy by 2009?

Experts also touched upon the high drop out rates in school for people of Afro-descent. What was being done to correct this? Among the positive points was the fact that 4.5 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product was allocated to education, as well as the idea of providing every student with a computer. The general figures for school dropouts were also quite worrying. Also, why did it especially affect women?

Response by Delegation

Answering to these questions and others, the delegation said that it was true that the biggest problem they had with regard to education was the drop-out rate. The reason why secondary level students no longer attended schools was very often not voluntary but the system was bringing this about by itself. Some civil society organizations had mentioned that one of the reasons was lack of accessibility and lack of public transportation. But this could not be the only cause.

The country’s economic development also brought about the fact that more young people were drawn into the labour market, detaching them from the educational system. The secondary establishment was not attractive enough to retain young people. Teachers were also getting de-motivated through low wages, which had an impact on the quality of their work, said the delegation.

From 2008 onwards they had built in an economic stimulus to bring children back to schools. There was also a scholarship programme that could be provided. There was also the fact that many of those that had done tertiary studies had ended up as taxi drivers, said the delegation.

Concluding Remarks

JAIME MARCHAN ROMERO, Committee Chairperson, in concluding remarks, said that the Committee had been pleased with the presence of the delegation. It had been a very useful exercise marked by frankness. The recommendations that would be issued by the Committee would be aimed at helping Uruguay to further implement economic, social and cultural rights. While Uruguay was a rather small country, it had a universal significance in terms of rights.

RICARDO GONZALEZ, Director General for Political Affairs at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, thanked all Experts for their constructive comments. It showed that they had carried out an in-depth analysis of the situation in the country. The exercise had been of fundamental significance for them. It had made it possible to cover a range of topics. Going from public polices; the rights of people of Afro-descent; and policies of equality. They had also discussed basic legislation that was very important. They had touched upon labour rights and trade unions rights. They believed that it was possible to have economic growth in Uruguay which generated employment. They had also discussed health, education, and housing and had tried to show the efforts of the authorities to make progress in these areas.

The Committee’s recommendations would be favorably received by the Uruguayan Government, said Mr. Gonzalez. The 2002 crisis had threatened the economic, social and cultural rights of a majority of Uruguayans. But in the last decade, Uruguay had also made more progress than ever in its history. Further, as of 2011 Uruguay would apply a system of progress indicators in the area of economic, social and cultural rights. This would be a new way in analyzing and assessing the progress made.

For use of the information media; not an official record

ESC10/013E