Distr. GENERAL CERD/C/SR.983 25 March 1993 Original: ENGLISH

Consideration of reports, comments and information submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention (continued)

Draft concluding observations concerning reports of States parties (continued)

Organization of work (continued)

Submission of reports by States parties under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention (continued)

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS, COMMENTS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION (agenda item 4) (continued)

Draft concluding observations concerning reports of States parties (continued)

Draft concluding observations concerning the ninth and tenth periodic reports of Algeria (continued) (CERD/C/209/Add.4)

1. Mr. DIACONU proposed that the following words should be added at the end of paragraph 2: "while expressing its concern about the difficulties of the present situation in Algeria". In paragraph 3, the words "ethnic communities" should be replaced by the words "ethnic and racial groups, including blacks". The following words should be added at the end of paragraph 4: "and the social benefits provided for in article 5 of the Convention".

2. Mr. de GOUTTES proposed that, in paragraph 3, the words "including blacks" should be amended to read: "in particular Berbers and blacks".

3. The CHAIRMAN said that he took it that the Committee adopted the amendments proposed by Mr. Diaconu and Mr. de Gouttes.

4. It was so decided.

5. The draft concluding observations concerning the ninth and tenth periodic reports of Algeria, as amended, were adopted.

Draft concluding observations concerning the seventh periodic report of the Central African Republic (CERD/C/117/Add.5)

6. Mrs. SADIQ ALI submitted the following draft concluding observations concerning the Central African Republic:

"1. In concluding the review, the Committee regretted that the Central African Republic had not submitted a report since 1984 and had not responded to its invitations to participate in the meeting and to furnish relevant information. The Committee wished to draw the attention of the Government of the State party to the possibility of requesting technical assistance from the United Nations Centre for Human Rights in the preparation of its reports.

2. It hoped to receive a new report shortly together with a core document in accordance with the guidelines HRI/1991/1. This is the more important in view of the changes which have taken place since 1984."

7. The draft concluding observations concerning the seventh periodic report of the Central African Republic were adopted.

8. Mr. WOLFRUM read out the following draft concluding observations concerning Ecuador:

"1. The Committee commended the regularity with which the Government of Ecuador had reported on the implementation of the Convention in Ecuador.

2. The Committee noted that one of the objectives of the National Development Plan was to ensure the recognition of Ecuador's multi-ethnic and multi-cultural character. The Committee expects that indigenous communities will benefit from the implementation of the Plan as far as their economic, cultural and social status is concerned.

3. The Committee encouraged the Government in its next report to provide detailed information on the implementation of the National Development Plan so as to put the Committee into a position in which it could fully assess the conditions in which the indigenous communities live. The Committee expressed particular concern that economic exploitation of the Amazon region should be undertaken only after full consideration of the interests of indigenous communities in the preservation of their identity. The Committee trusts that the Government will take effective steps to achieve this.

4. The Government of Ecuador was called upon to report on the functioning of the judiciary in connection with the Convention and especially upon the status and functions of the ad hoc Commission on Human Rights established by the Ecuadorian National Congress."

9. The draft concluding observations concerning the eleventh and twelfth periodic reports of Ecuador were adopted.

Draft concluding observations concerning the eighth periodic report of Qatar (CERD/C/207/Add.1)

10. Mrs. SADIQ ALI submitted the following draft concluding observations concerning Qatar:

"1. The Committee welcomed the Government's willingness in principle to introduce new legislation to bring its existing laws into conformity with the Convention. It repeated its offer of assistance from the advisory services of the Centre for Human Rights.

2. The Committee drew the attention of the Government to general recommendations I and II, and reiterated its request for further demographic data in accordance with general recommendation IV.

3. While appreciating that there might be little or no evidence of racial discrimination in Qatar, the Committee emphasized the preventive value of legislative measures.

4. The Committee noted the view of the Government that the Shariah courts and the civil courts together offered sufficient remedies for any charges of racial discrimination that might be brought. It sought clarification as to the criteria by which a Shariah court would determine an appropriate punishment and queried the necessity of separate proceedings in the civil court for the victim to obtain compensation in accordance with article 6 of the Convention."

11. Mr. FERRERO COSTA suggested that paragraph 3 should be amended to reflect the Committee's view that racial discrimination existed in all countries.

12. Mr. YUTZIS said he supported that suggestion and proposed that paragraph 3 should also reflect the State party's claim that racial discrimination did not exist. As to the second sentence of paragraph 4, the Committee had not sought clarification of the criteria by which a Shariah court would determine an appropriate punishment, but had expressed its concern about such criteria being used to apply the law.

13. Mr. BANTON said that, in paragraph 3, it would be enough to delete the words "or no". The one piece of evidence the Committee had found had been the rules which related to the employment of an Arab legal counsel and which some members had considered discriminatory.

14. Mr. WOLFRUM said that a further piece of evidence had been found in the Nationality Law, under which a naturalized citizen had to wait 10 years before being considered for employment in public service.

15. The CHAIRMAN suggested that Mrs. Sadiq Ali should submit a revised text at a later stage, in the light of the comments made.

16. It was so decided.

Draft concluding observations concerning the eighth periodic report of Sudan (CERD/C/222/Add.1)

17. Mr. BANTON read out the following draft concluding observations concerning Sudan:

"1. The Committee expressed its appreciation of the willingness of the Government of Sudan to continue its dialogue with the Committee. It noted the statement of the representative that violations of human rights have been occurring and, in view of the Committee's anxieties, attached particular significance to the further statement that the Government was taking every step to prevent more such occurrences.

2. The Committee regretted the lack of information on the ethnic dimension to the current conflict in the country and the insufficiency of demographic data requested in the Committee's guidelines and general recommendation IV.

3. The Committee took note of the information supplied about Sudanese legislation, but observed that there often appears to be a disjunction between these provisions and the manner of their implementation. It expressed its concern about the situation in the Nuba mountains and that of the Fur and its wish to learn about the findings of the Commission of Inquiry appointed on 25 November 1992.

4. In accordance with article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Committee requested further information by 31 January 1994 from the Government of Sudan concerning the implementation of the Convention."

18. Mr. FERRERO COSTA suggested that the following new sentence should be added between the first and second sentences of paragraph 1: "The Committee expressed its deep concern at the serious human rights violations in Sudan".

19. He also suggested that the following sentence should be added at the end of paragraph 2: "The Committee called upon the Government to comply with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination".

20. Lastly, he suggested that the date in paragraph 4 should be changed to 31 July 1993, as Sudan represented an extreme case of human rights violations and there was no reason why the Committee should wait until January 1994 for further information.

21. Mr. DIACONU said that the proposed new wording for paragraph 2 gave the impression that the Committee was making a judgement, and that might jeopardize the dialogue with the Government of Sudan. The date in paragraph 4 should be left as it stood in order to allow more time for improvements in the situation.

22. Mr. FERRERO COSTA said that he would not object if the amendment he had proposed to paragraph 2 was worded more tactfully, but he would insist on an earlier deadline, especially as the Committee did not know whether it would be able to meet in January 1994.

23. Mr. YUTZIS asked why the date of 31 January 1994 had been chosen.

24. The Committee had suggested that the representative of Sudan might inform the authorities of his country that the advisory services of the Centre for Human Rights were available for assistance in the preparation of their next report. That position should be reflected in paragraph 4.

25. Mr. SHAHI said that he agreed with Mr. Diaconu's position on the date of 31 January 1994, but would not object if it was changed to 31 July 1993.

26. With regard to paragraph 2, he proposed that the sentence suggested by Mr. Ferrero Costa should be replaced by the following: "The Committee requests the Government to ensure the harmonization of Sudan's national legislation, regulations and practices with the provisions of the Convention and their effective implementation".

27. Mr. de GOUTTES said that he supported Mr. Shahi's proposal concerning paragraph 2. As far as paragraph 4 was concerned, he could accept the date of 31 July 1993, but he was aware that it might give rise to problems. The words "by 31 January 1994 at the latest" might therefore be adopted as a compromise solution. He agreed with the proposal made by Mr. Yutzis with regard to paragraph 4.

28. Mr. BANTON said that he agreed with the amendment to paragraph 2 suggested by Mr. Shahi and proposed that the wording Mr. de Gouttes had suggested for paragraph 4 should be amended to read: "as soon as possible, but not later than 31 January 1994". He also supported the proposal by Mr. Yutzis regarding the offer of the assistance of the advisory services of the Centre for Human Rights in the preparation of Sudan's next report.

29. The draft concluding observations concerning the eighth periodic report of Sudan, as amended, were adopted.

Draft concluding observations concerning the eleventh and twelfth periodic reports of Ukraine (CERD/C/197/Add.5 and CERD/C/226/Add.3)

30. Mr. RECHETOV read out the original version of the draft concluding observations concerning Ukraine:

"1. The Committee commended the regularity with which the Government of the Ukraine had reported on the implementation of the Convention, for the high quality of its delegation's replies to questions, and for its candour in acknowledging deficiencies.

2. The Committee noted a broad range of information provided in the twelfth report on historic changes going on in Ukraine, its support on the foreign scene, for the protection of human rights and, especially national minorities, and its adoption of legal instruments for developing democracy and strengthening the rule of law. Some of the information provided went beyond the needs of the Committee. It was also felt that demographic data could be presented in a more illustrative way. Special attention was given to the statement in the report pointing out that so far Ukraine has avoided ethnic conflicts, but, given the political, economic and social conditions, there can be no guarantee that the ethnic situation will not deteriorate. Hope was expressed that the situation in Crimea would be resolved with respect for human rights and for the rights of ethnic minorities together with recognition of the inviolability and integrity of existing frontiers.

3. Regarding article 3 of the Convention, the Committee considered that Ukraine's stand on sanctions in regard to South Africa should have been expressed. More information was demanded on article 4 in accordance with general recommendation IV. It was also considered that information offered concerning article 7, on measures in the fields of teaching and education, should have been in accordance with general recommendation V."

He then read out the revised version of the same text:

"1. The Committee commended the regularity with which the Government of the Ukraine had reported on the implementation of the Convention, for the high quality of its delegation's replies to questions, and for its candour in acknowledging deficiencies.

2. The Committee noted a broad range of information provided in the twelfth report on historic changes going on in Ukraine, its support on the foreign scene, for the protection of human rights and, especially national minorities, and its adoption of legal instruments for developing democracy and strengthening the rule of law. It was nevertheless felt that demographic data could be presented in a more illustrative way. Hope was expressed that the existing situation of unrest there will be resolved with respect for human rights and for the rights of ethnic minorities together with recognition of the inviolability and integrity of existing frontiers.

3. Regarding article 3 of the Convention, the Committee considered that Ukraine's stand on sanctions in regard to South Africa should have been expressed. More information was demanded on article 4 in accordance with general recommendation IV. It was also considered that information offered concerning article 7, on measures in the fields of teaching and education, should have been in accordance with general recommendation V."

31. Mr. FERRERO COSTA said that the revised text was generally satisfactory. He was not altogether clear as to the meaning of the words "together with recognition of the inviolability and integrity of existing frontiers" at the end of paragraph 2. As the Committee normally did not refer to such issues in its concluding observations, those words should be deleted.

32. Mr. SHAHI said that the revised text was acceptable. However, he was not sure whether it had been appropriate to replace the words "situation in Crimea" in the last sentence of paragraph 2 by the words "existing situation of unrest". In drafting its concluding observations, the Committee should follow a uniform practice in referring to specific regions.

33. Mr. de GOUTTES said that the fact that the consideration of Ukraine's report had been particularly rich should be reflected in the Committee's concluding observations. In his view, the fourth sentence of paragraph 2 of the original version of the text should not have been deleted because it reflected one of the most important concluding remarks made by the representative of Ukraine. That sentence should either have been retained as it stood or amended to read: "The Committee's attention was drawn in particular to the statement that a solution to ethnic conflicts lay in an improvement in the economic situation and in political stabilization".

34. Mr. RECHETOV said he agreed with Mr. de Gouttes that the fourth sentence of paragraph 2 of the original text was very important and should be retained. He also took note of Mr. Shahi's comments on the replacement of the words "situation in Crimea" by the words "existing situations of unrest" and recalled that, during the consideration of Ukraine's report, specific reference had been made to unrest in Crimea and in another region, which was not part of Ukraine. It had thus been decided not to refer to that latter region in the concluding observations. If the Committee wished, he could agree that, in paragraph 2, the words "recognition of the inviolability and integrity of existing frontiers" should be deleted, even though such recognition was of vital importance to the situation in Crimea.

35. Mr. GARVALOV said that he was in favour of retaining what had been the fourth sentence of paragraph 2 in the original version. In the first sentence of paragraph 3, the word "expressed" should be replaced by the word "clarified". In the second sentence of that paragraph, the word "demanded" should be replaced by the word "asked".

36. Mr. DIACONU said that the question of the inviolability and integrity of existing frontiers was closely linked to ensuring respect for the rights of ethnic minorities and was consequently of great importance to the countries of eastern Europe. He proposed that, in the last sentence of paragraph 2, the words "together with recognition of the inviolability and integrity of existing frontiers" should be replaced by the words "together with respect for the inviolability of frontiers and the territorial integrity of States".

37. Mr. LAMPTEY said that, on the whole, the draft text was acceptable. He proposed that, in the third sentence of paragraph 2 of the revised text, the words "situation in Crimea" should be replaced by the words "situation in the area". In the last sentence of the paragraph, the words "together with recognition of the inviolability and integrity of existing frontiers" should be deleted, since the issue was a political one that went beyond the scope of the Committee's mandate.

38. The draft concluding observations concerning the eleventh and twelfth periodic reports of Ukraine, as amended, were adopted.

Draft concluding observations concerning the eighth periodic report of Qatar

(CERD/C/207/Add.1)

39. Mrs. SADIQ ALI, noting that paragraphs 3 and 4 had been amended, read out the revised text of the draft concluding observations concerning Qatar:

"1. The Committee welcomed the Government's willingness in principle to introduce new legislation to bring its existing laws into conformity with the Convention. It repeated its offer of assistance from the Advisory Services of the Centre for Human Rights.

2. The Committee drew the attention of the Government to general recommendations I and II, and reiterated its request for further demographic data in accordance with general recommendation IV.

3. While appreciating that there might be little evidence of racial discrimination in Qatar, the Committee emphasized the preventive value of legislative measures.

4. The Committee noted the view of the Government that the Shariah courts and the civil courts together offered sufficient remedies for any charges of racial discrimination that might be brought. The Committee was concerned about the criteria by which a Shariah court would determine an appropriate punishment and queried the necessity of separate proceedings in the civil court for the victim to obtain compensation in accordance with article 6 of the Convention."

40. Mr. SHAHI said that, during its consideration of the report of Qatar, the Committee had requested further information about the dual system of Shariah courts and civil courts. The words "was concerned about" in the second sentence of paragraph 4 were thus too strong.

41. Mr. BANTON suggested that the original wording of that sentence should be used. The words "The Committee was concerned about" would be replaced by the words "It sought clarification as to".

42. The draft concluding observations concerning the eighth periodic report of Qatar, as amended, were adopted.

Draft concluding observations concerning the fifth, sixth and seventh periodic reports of Jamaica (CERD/C/117/Add.4)

43. Mrs. SADIQ ALI read out the following revised text of the draft concluding observations concerning Jamaica:

"1. In concluding the review, the Committee regretted that Jamaica had submitted no report since 1985. It expressed appreciation for the attendance of the representative of the State and the explanation he had offered for the lapse in reporting.

2. The Committee hoped to receive the next report in due time, together with a core document, and that it would be in accordance with the guidelines. In particular it hoped that by that time Jamaica would be in a position to withdraw its reservation regarding article 4.

3. As the demographic information supplied with the previous report was in some respects problematic, Jamaica was requested to clarify the demographic aspects in its next report. It was also asked to supply more information relating to article 5 of the Convention."

44. The draft concluding observations concerning the fifth, sixth and seventh periodic reports of Jamaica, as amended, were adopted.

Draft concluding observations concerning the fourth periodic report of Chad (CERD/C/114/Add.2)

45. Mr. de GOUTTES read out the following draft concluding observations concerning Chad:

"1. The Committee welcomed the presence of the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs of Chad, who had come to present his Government's point of view, thus demonstrating Chad's willingness to reopen the dialogue with the Committee after many years of silence.

2. The Committee took note with satisfaction of the commitment made by the representative of Chad to submit the written periodic report in the prescribed manner at the next session and reiterated its offer of the advisory services of the Centre for Human Rights to assist Chad in preparing the report, if it so wished.

3. The Committee emphasized the particular importance it attached, during the country's present transition period, to the measures taken by the Government of Chad to consolidate the rule of law and to prevent the return of any dictatorial regime or of any policies of discrimination or repression against particular ethnic groups."

46. The draft concluding observations concerning the fourth periodic report of Chad were adopted.

Draft concluding observations concerning the initial report of Mozambique (CERD/C/111/Add.1)

47. Mrs. SADIQ ALI submitted the following draft concluding observations:

"1. In concluding the review, the Committee regretted that Mozambique had not been able to respond to its invitation to participate in the meeting and to furnish relevant information. The Committee wished to draw the attention of the State party to the possibility of requesting technical assistance from the United Nations Centre for Human Rights in the preparation of its report. The Committee hoped to receive a new report shortly.

2. At the same time, the Committee expressed its awareness of the current difficulties in the State party which it hoped might soon be overcome."

48. Mr. FERRERO COSTA said that, as in the case of other concluding observations, mention should be made of the fact that Mozambique had failed to submit a report since 1984. He proposed that, in paragraph 1, the words "had not submitted a report since its initial report in 1984 and" should be inserted after the words "the Committee regretted that Mozambique". In his view, the wording of paragraph 2 was not forceful enough; he therefore proposed that the words "its deep concern at the serious human rights violations in Mozambique" should be added after the words "the Committee expressed". He would also like the following wording, which was similar to that included in the concluding observations concerning Sudan, to be added at the end of paragraph 2: "It requested the Government to ensure the harmonization of Mozambique's national legislation, regulations and practices with the provisions of the Convention and their effective implementation".

49. Mr. DIACONU said that the cases of Sudan and Mozambique were different. The Committee knew for certain that ethnic problems existed in Sudan. In Mozambique, however, it was not clear that there actually was an ethnic or racial problem. He had no objection to the proposal that a reference should be added to the Committee's concern about the serious human rights violations in Mozambique; nevertheless, the Committee was not bound to make such a general statement, which was really the province of other human rights bodies.

50. In considering the report of Sudan, the Committee had been able to determine and to make the observation that there was a need for that country to ensure that its policies were harmonized with the provisions of the Convention. Since Mozambique had not been present during the consideration of its report, the Committee could not be sure that the Government did need to harmonize its policies in that manner.

51. Mr. FERRERO COSTA said that he was willing to withdraw his proposal for the addition of the words "It requested the Government to ensure the harmonization of Mozambique's national legislation, regulations and practices with the provisions of the Convention and their effective implementation". Instead, he proposed that the first sentence of paragraph 1 should be redrafted to read: "In concluding the review, the Committee regretted that Mozambique had not submitted a report since its initial report in 1984 and had not been able to respond to its invitation to participate in the meeting and to furnish relevant information with regard to the application of the Convention".

52. The draft concluding observations concerning the initial report of Mozambique, as amended, were adopted.

Draft concluding observations concerning the twelfth periodic report of Poland (CERD/C/226/Add.2)

53. Mr. WOLFRUM submitted the draft concluding observations concerning Poland:

"1. The Committee recommended that the Government of the Republic of Poland in drafting its next periodic report makes use of the possibility opened up by the revised guidelines on reporting to submit a core document covering the legal, political and economic situation in Poland in general. It trusts that the next periodic report will provide all the information requested during the Committee's consideration of the tenth, eleventh and twelfth reports.

2. The Committee reiterated its request for further demographic data in accordance with general recommendation IV.

3. The Committee considered the form in which the Convention had been incorporated into Polish law and noted that a different system has been provided for under the new Constitution. It recommended to the Government to consider giving the Convention the same status in domestic law as other international human rights instruments."

54. Mr. de GOUTTES suggested that the following words should be added at the end of paragraph 2: "and for full information on the situation of ethnic groups".

55. Mr. FERRERO COSTA suggested that the full title of the Convention should be given in the first sentence of paragraph 3.

56. The draft concluding observations concerning the twelfth periodic report of Poland, as amended, were adopted.

ORGANIZATION OF WORK (continued)

57. Mr. BANTON said that the country rapporteurs had met to discuss ways of improving the Committee's concluding observations and had prepared the following statement:

"The country rapporteurs met on 11 March to harmonize their draft concluding observations. They recommended that starting in August 1993 the Committee follow the example of other treaty bodies in requesting that the Centre for Human Rights assign a staff member to draft concluding observations on our behalf. An example of how this is being done is provided by the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on Algeria circulated at the time of CERD's consideration of the Algerian report."

58. The country rapporteurs had considered that the Committee's concluding observations should be more substantial so that they would be in line with those of other treaty bodies. The Committee would still have complete control over their content. He suggested that the arrangement should be tried out at the next session and then reviewed.

59. Mr. DIACONU said that the staff member of the Centre for Human Rights would draft the concluding observations for the Committee's consideration, rather than on its behalf. He was also not sure to whom the country rapporteurs' statement was addressed: was it intended for the Centre for Human Rights? In any event, he thought that the proposal it contained was a very good one.

60. Mr. FERRERO COSTA and Mr. GARVALOV said that they agreed with the proposal.

61. Mr. de GOUTTES, Mr. YUTZIS and Mr. WOLFRUM said that they agreed with the proposal and expressed their appreciation for the hard work the Secretariat had done in helping to prepare the concluding observations.

62. The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee seemed to agree that it should request the Centre for Human Rights to assign an extra staff member to draft concluding observations for its consideration at the Committee's next session. If the Committee agreed, a decision to that effect would be prepared.

63. It was so decided.

SUBMISSION OF REPORTS BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE CONVENTION (continued)

Draft general recommendation on article 9 of the Convention (CERD/C/1993/Misc.3)

64. Mr. DIACONU said that the draft recommendation, which had been discussed at the Committee's 981st meeting, was intended to remind States parties that, under article 9 of the Convention, they were obliged to report on the situation in their own territory. The last paragraph provided that, if they wished to refer to the situation in other States parties, they should invoke article 11 of the Convention.

65. Mr. YUTZIS said that the problem of a State party discussing the human rights situation in another State party had arisen very rarely. He considered that the draft recommendation could be made both simpler and more positive in tone and proposed that it might read:

"1. Under article 9 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, States parties undertake to submit to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, through the Committee, a report on measures taken by them to give effect to the provisions of the Convention.

2. With regard to this obligation of States parties, the Committee has noted that on some occasions reports have referred to human rights situations in other States.

3. For this reason, the Committee wishes to remind States parties to bear in mind the existence of article 11 of the Convention, which is, procedurally speaking, the only means available for drawing a matter to the Committee's attention when a State party considers that another State party is not giving effect to the provisions of the Convention."

66. Mr. FERRERO COSTA and Mr. de GOUTTES said that they supported the proposal by Mr. Yutzis.

67. Mr. DIACONU said that, if the Committee wished to adopt Mr. Yutzis' proposal, he had two amendments to suggest. In paragraph 1, it should be made clear that the reports of States parties were submitted to the Committee, through the Secretary-General, rather than the other way around. Secondly, although Mr. Yutzis' proposal placed the main emphasis on article 11 of the Convention, he thought that it should remind States parties of their obligations under article 9. He therefore suggested that paragraph 3 should read: "For this reason, the Committee wishes to remind States parties of the provisions of article 9 concerning the contents of reports, as well as the existence of article 11, which is, procedurally speaking, the only means available ...".

68. Mr. FERRERO COSTA suggested the following wording for paragraph 1: "... to submit to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for the consideration of the Committee ...". The text of paragraph 3 should read: "... the contents of reports, as well as the provisions of article 11 ...".

69. Mr. WOLFRUM said that, all along, he had wanted to view the issue from the perspective of article 11, rather than article 9, so he welcomed Mr. Yutzis' proposal, with the amendments suggested by Mr. Diaconu. Paragraph 3 might be amended to read: "... the contents of reports, while bearing in mind the provisions of article 11 ...".

70. Mr. RECHETOV said that the draft recommendation tried to combine two entirely different ideas. Mr. Diaconu had wished to discourage States parties from discussing the human rights situation in other States by reminding them of their obligations under article 9 of the Convention. The Committee knew which State party he had had in mind. Because of other members' misgivings, Mr. Diaconu had introduced the reference to article 11, which dealt with an entirely different procedure. Moreover, article 11 covered only the case where one State party wished to condemn the situation in another State, when the comments made might not be critical at all. Both articles were important, but, in his view, they did not belong together in the same general recommendation.

71. The CHAIRMAN suggested that Mr. Yutzis and Mr. Diaconu might prepare a compromise text which the Committee could adopt at its next meeting.

72. Mr. de GOUTTES said he agreed with Mr. Rechetov that the text contained two different proposals, one on article 9 of the Convention and the other on article 11: however, there was no reason why the two proposals should not be combined. That would not be incompatible with a separate recommendation focusing on article 11.

73. The CHAIRMAN suggested that Mr. Diaconu and Mr. Yutzis should prepare a combined text for adoption the following day. Mr. de Gouttes and Mr. Rechetov might also prepare a text focusing exclusively on article 11.

74. It was so decided.

Draft decision on the human rights situation in Burundi, Rwanda and Papua New Guinea

75. Mr. BANTON introduced the draft decision, which read:

"At its forty-first session, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination addressed communications to the Government of Burundi, Rwanda and Papua New Guinea requesting further information (see A/47/18, sect. VII and paras. 265-266). This information was requested by 1 March 1993, but, at the time of writing, has not yet been received.

The Committee is concerned about information it has received independently about the situation in these countries and believes it must take up the matter again at its next session starting on 2 August 1993. Therefore, the Committee requests the Secretary-General to make available to it any relevant information concerning the human rights situation in these countries."

76. He asked the Secretary of the Committee to explain what effects that decision would have from the administrative point of view.

77. Mr. JOHNSON (Secretary of the Committee) said that the last sentence of the decision was to be understood as requesting the Secretariat of the Centre for Human Rights to inquire about information that might be available on the human rights situation in those countries. Such information could be derived from the documentation of the Commission on Human Rights and also from material that had been submitted to treaty monitoring bodies under other conventions.

78. Mr. LAMPTEY said he did not think that the draft decision was either necessary or proper. The Committee's sole task under the Convention was to consider situations in countries on the basis of reports by States parties.

79. The Committee had already decided that, when countries did not respond to its requests for information, as in the case of Mozambique, its procedure would be to consider previous reports, together with material from other sources. However, taking account of reports submitted to other human rights bodies might lead to problems with the State party. The Committee's proper function was to cooperate with States parties in eliminating racial discrimination.

80. Just as State parties had freely assumed their obligations under the Convention, so were they free to renounce those obligations at any time, and that would hardly help to achieve the Committee's objectives. All the Committee needed to do was to agree to consider the reports of the three Governments concerned at its next session, if they had been received by then. The country rapporteurs could help the Secretariat obtain the necessary

documentation.

81. Mr. WOLFRUM said he did not fully understand those objections. Mr. Lamptey had himself agreed that the Committee could, under its own rules of procedure, discuss the situation in the countries concerned on the basis of previous reports and, in so doing, could use not only official material, but material from other sources. All the draft decision was doing was to ensure that there was sufficient information on which to assess those reports.

82. The three countries concerned had not cooperated with the Committee and he did not see why they should receive different treatment than Mozambique and Jamaica.

83. Mr. BANTON said that he would have no objection if the Committee did not adopt the draft decision, provided that it agreed to include the consideration of the last available reports of the three States parties in the agenda for its next session. Those States should be notified of the Committee's intention, using the format normally adopted in cases of non-reporting States, and should be invited to submit reports in the interim and to be present when those reports were considered.

84. Mr. YUTZIS said that the members of the Committee evidently disagreed on how article 9 (2) of the Convention, which stated that recommendations could be based on "information received from the States parties", was to be interpreted. It might be useful to draft a general recommendation on the subject.

85. He himself could support the draft decision in principle.

86. Mr. de GOUTTES pointed out that there were two other draft decisions, to be considered on the former Yugoslavia. The adoption of those two decisions before the end of the session was a matter of urgency, particularly since the Committee had agreed to consider the possibility of preventive measures under article 9 (1).

87. Another matter of priority was the text concerning the case of Mr. Vidas, introduced earlier: that case was significant as an example of discrimination based on ethnic origin.

88. Mr. WOLFRUM supported by Mr. SONG Shuhua, proposed that the Committee should adopt Mr. Banton's suggestion that, instead of adopting the draft decision, it should agree to discuss the last available reports of the three States parties concerned at its next session.

89. It was so decided.

Draft decisions on the former Yugoslavia

90. The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the draft decision submitted by Mr. Rechetov, which read:

"In view of recent reports of armed conflict within the territory of former Yugoslavia and in accordance with rule 65 of its rules of procedure relating to the provisions of article 9, paragraph 1, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination requests further information by 31 July 1993 from the Governments of the Federation of the Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), Croatia and Slovenia, on the implementation of the Convention within their territories.

The Committee trusts that the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina has given attention to the process of notifying its succession to the treaty obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and, if it proceeds accordingly, the Committee requests further information by 31 July from the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the implementation of the Convention within its territory."

91. He then drew attention to the draft decision proposed by Mr. Aboul-Nasr, Mr. Banton, Mr. Garvalov, Mr. van Boven, Mr. Wolfrum and Mr. de Gouttes, which read:

"In view of recent reports of ethnic conflict within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and in accordance with rule 65 of its rules of procedure relating to the provisions of article 9, paragraph 1, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination requests further information by 31 July 1993 from the Government on the implementation of the Convention within the territory.

The Committee on the Elimination on Racial Discrimination decides that at its forty-third session it will review the eighth and the tenth reports of Yugoslavia submitted and considered in 1985 and 1990 and the Committee's consideration of them to see whether any lessons can be learned about the processes generating ethnic conflicts and about the ways in which the Committee can react to signs of increasing tension."

92. Mr. DIACONU asked whether the sponsors of the two draft decisions could not agree to combine them into a single text.

93. Mr. RECHETOV said he could accept a combined text. He suggested that, in the decision he had proposed, the words "within their territories" at the end of the first paragraph should be deleted.

94. Mr. de GOUTTES said that he could agree that a reference to Croatia and Slovenia should be added to the text of the second draft decision.

95. Mr. RECHETOV pointed out that, since the Committee was requesting information from all successor States to the former Yugoslavia, it was important that the text adopted should include a reference to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

96. Mr. FERRERO COSTA said he agreed that the two texts needed to be brought into line, but he was not sure whether there had in fact been any reports of ethnic conflicts in Slovenia. He feared that to request information from all the Republics that had belonged to the former Yugoslavia without distinction might water down the central issue facing the Committee, which was the ethnic cleansing reported to be taking place in Serbia and Croatia.

97. Mr. WOLFRUM proposed that the beginning of the second draft decision should be amended to read: "In view of recent reports of ethnic conflict within the territory of the former Yugoslavia ...". The end of the paragraph would read: "... requests further information by 31 July 1993 from the Governments of the former Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), Croatia and Slovenia on the implementation of the Convention within their territories".

98. The text could then continue with the second paragraph of the first draft decision, with the wording brought into line with that of the recommendation already adopted on the subject and with the addition of the words "if possible".

99. Mr. RECHETOV said the he could accept that suggestion.

100. Mr. FERRERO COSTA pointed out that the wording should be brought into line with article 3 of the Convention, which used the phrase "territories under their jurisdiction" rather than "their territories". That distinction was an important one.

101. Mr. WOLFRUM said that he had intended to use that wording.

102. Mr. SHAHI noted that the first part of the proposed text used the words "the former Yugoslavia", but later referred to "the Republic of Yugoslavia"; the texts should be made consistent.

103. In his view, it would be too much in the present circumstances to expect the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to be in a position to provide information, but he could accept the text if the words "if possible" were included.

104. The CHAIRMAN suggested that a small working group consisting of Mr. Yutzis, Mr. Rechetov, Mr. Diaconu, Mr. Ferrero Costa, Mr. Wolfrum and Mr. de Gouttes should be set up to prepare a revised text for adoption the following day.

105. He further suggested that Mr. Shahi should be designated to monitor the work of the fourth session of the Preparatory Committee for the World Conference on Human Rights.

106. It was so decided.