Consideration of reports, comments and information submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention (continued)
Twelfth periodic report of Germany
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS, COMMENTS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION (agenda item 4) (continued)
Twelfth periodic report of Germany (CERD/C/226/Add.7)
1. At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. Meyer-Ladewig, Mr. Reermann, Mr. Siegele, Mr. Sasdrich, Mr. Daum, Mr. Olindorf and Mr. Schemd took places at the Committee table.
2. Mr. MEYER-LADEWIG (Germany), introducing his country's twelfth periodic report, which included the eleventh periodic report, said he looked forward to continuing an open and cooperative dialogue with the Committee. Following the reunification of Germany, the report now applied to Germany as a whole. The recent increase in xenophobic violence, which had made the question of combating racism particularly relevant in the past two years, was a source of concern. The report, however, covered the period up to July 1992 and did not therefore deal with much of the recent violence. He therefore proposed to summarize overall developments in 1992.
3. Xenophobic offences had peaked in October 1991 in the events at Hoyerswerda, and then again at the end of August 1992 in Rostock. In other parts of Germany, xenophobic violence had culminated, on the night of 22 November 1992, in two arson attacks in Mölln (Schleswig-Holstein) in which two Turkish women and a 10-year-old girl had lost their lives. Anti-Jewish attacks had also been on the increase, the arson attack on the former Sachsenhausen concentration camp being an example.
4. Since December 1992, the overall number of xenophobic attacks had been decreasing, but unfortunately there had been a number of serious incidents in 1993, particularly in Solingen.
5. In 1992, the total number of xenophobically motivated crimes had shown a roughly twofold increase over 1992, and the brutality of the attacks had increased. There had been more arson and bomb attacks. The number of people killed had also risen; there had been three in 1991, six in 1992 and a further six in 1993. The normal pattern of offences up to the first half of 1992 had been attacks by individuals or small groups. In Rostock, however, and other east German towns, large numbers of troublemakers had attacked not only foreigners and their homes, but also police and firemen.
6. Most xenophobically motivated crimes were committed spontaneously by local offenders. There was so far no proof of central planning by right-wing extremist organizations. In 1992, some 42,400 people had belonged to extremist groups, 2,600 more than in 1991. That figure excluded the 23,000 members claimed by the "Republikaner" party. Of those 42,400 people, 6,400 were militant right-wing extremists, particularly National Socialist skinheads. The Federal Government had described the causes of the violence, mainly perpetrated by juveniles and young adults, in the report. Such people tended to shed their inhibitions if they felt they could call on a broad base of public support, an impression that was sometimes conveyed by extensive media coverage, which did not take account of the long-term increase in friendliness towards foreigners. Violence also increased when sanctions appeared to be lacking, an impression that had mistakenly been conveyed in Rostock, as a result of the transfer of the asylum-seekers to other accommodation and the flattering attention paid by the media. Alcohol was also a contributing factor. Most of the crimes were spontaneous and often imitative.
7. Such violent acts had been immediately denounced by the Federal President and at all levels of government. In particular, there had been a broad movement of protest among the German people against right-wing extremist and xenophobic violence, beginning on 8 November 1992 with a major demonstration by 350,000 people in Berlin. Newspaper advertisements, radio and television, and posters had been used to call for a stand against racism and xenophobia. Projects on the subject had been run in schools. School classes or private individuals had become "godparents" of foreigners, such as those in asylum-seekers' accommodation. Employers' and employees' organizations had spoken out against xenophobia.
8. The violence, albeit regrettable, did not reflect the attitude of the population as a whole, who remained hospitable to foreigners. Indeed, surveys commissioned by the Federal Government had revealed that people were more ready to accept foreigners in 1992 than in the previous year. In recent surveys, 94 per cent of those questioned had said that they had no sympathy with violence against foreigners. A survey in January 1993 had shown that extremists were socially despised in Germany. He was particularly glad to say that, despite the anti-Jewish violence, the majority of Germans had a very positive attitude towards Jews. Germany's hospitality towards foreigners had been recognized on 26 October 1992 by the award of the Nansen Medal to the President, Richard von Weizsäcker by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Finally, it was important to note that right-wing extremist parties and groups had not so far been able to play a role in German politics.
9. State bodies were making every effort to prevent further violent acts and bring the full force of the law to bear against those who took part in xenophobic violence. At a special conference in October 1992, the Federal Minister of Justice and the Ministers of Justice in the Länder had agreed that cases with a right-wing extremist background would be dealt with speedily. Rapid investigation of xenophobic attacks, prompt sentencing and measures taken by the Federal Ministry of the Interior at the end of 1992 had served as a signal and a deterrent to potential offenders. Three right-wing extremist associations had been banned. Applications for forfeiture of basic rights under article 18 of the Basic Law, an exceptional measure, had been filed against two right-wing extremists who were particularly well known for circulating malicious propaganda. The Federal Länder (States) could prohibit associations whose organization and activities were limited to the Land in question, and in Lower Saxony, for example, the right-wing extremist Deutscher Kameradschaftsbund (German Comradeship Alliance) had been banned. The authorities were also seeking to counter skinhead music and fan magazines calling for xenophobic violence, and consideration was being given to the listing of such publications by the Federal Review Board for Publications Harmful to Young Persons.
10. Public opinion in Germany and abroad occasionally complained of too lenient sentencing of the mainly young offenders. It should be borne in mind, however, that German criminal law relating to young offenders focused, quite properly, on the educative principle, the aim being to prevent the commission or another offence; reliable research showed that such an aim was not generally achieved by harsh sentencing. The same principle applied to offences involving violence against foreigners. That did not preclude the imposition of longer terms of detention in the form of youth custody, in order to make it clear that neither the State nor society were prepared to accept such behaviour.
11. In general, there were indications that the measures already taken by the authorities against right-wing extremists were having an effect. Evidence of that was the falling acceptance of right-wing extremists demonstrated in opinion polls since the late autumn of 1992, although there was still much work to be done.
12. The police also had a special role to play in combating xenophobic activities. Conventional police methods were not adequate for the purpose, and a number of measures had been introduced both by the Federal Government and the Länder, including preventive measures such as better protection for foreigners' accommodation and maintenance of an adequate standby force to deal with sudden eruptions of violence. Prominence was given to the establishment of a high-performance police force, based on democratic principles, in the new Länder of east Germany.
13. With regard to the accusation that police in the new Länder had not been present, or had arrived too late, to protect foreigners affected by violence, as in Rostock and Eberswalde, public prosecution offices had already begun preliminary investigations into the cases of the police officers concerned. Where Rostock was concerned, the 36 persons under investigation included the former Minister of the Interior of the Land, who had since resigned. The Director of Public Prosecutions had issued instructions for those investigations to be treated as a matter of urgency, and the Land Parliament of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania had appointed a parliamentary fact-finding committee.
14. Education was of special importance in the fight against xenophobia. Parents and schools were not always able to cope with the problem of violence. The Federal Ministry of Education and Science, and the Federal Government and Länder Committee for Education, Planning and Research had developed approaches, oriented towards tolerance and democracy, to make school children aware of the dangers of extremism and xenophobia. The Federal Ministry for Women and Youth was taking measures such as improving preventive public assistance for young people, extending cross-cultural youth work and organizing a programme of action against aggression and violence. Preliminary assessments suggested that groups previously inclined to violence could be positively influenced by such projects.
15. Xenophobia was due not only to social problems, but lack of knowledge and inability to cope with democracy and make compromises. The Federal Centre for Political Education was therefore primarily concerned to develop a democratic consciousness, publishing a variety of literature with that aim in view. The Federal Ministry of the Interior had made great efforts to provide information through selective advertising in young people's magazines, for example. A number of publications had been annexed to the report.
16. The seriousness with which the Federal Government regarded the task of preventing and combating xenophobic violence was shown by its establishment of a committee of State Secretaries to coordinate an offensive against violence and xenophobia. An interim report, submitted in February 1993, and discussed in Parliament, concerned prevention of violence among young people, preventive public assistance for young people, work in schools and political education, work on issues associated with Germans and foreigners living side by side, and police and criminal law matters.
17. In the light of Germany's recent history, the fight against racism was a special duty which the Government was endeavouring to fulfil. The vast majority of Germans felt shame and abhorrence in the face of right-wing extremist violence. At all levels of government, they supported the measures being implemented by the authorities and were showing their willingness to be tolerant through many private activities.
18. Mr. van BOVEN, Country Rapporteur, said that according to the document "Hostility towards foreigners in Germany; facts, analysis, arguments", published in February 1993 by the Press and Information Office of the Federal Government, since the war, Germany had not sought to evade the critical attention of other nations who anxiously recalled the past. It was therefore not unfair for Germany, in its attempt to defend democracy and preserve human rights, to be judged more strictly and with more emotion than other countries. While he understood and appreciated that statement, as a member of the Committee, he had to take the position that Germany must be judged by a single standard: the requirements of the Convention.
19. Although the twelfth periodic report had been submitted in February 1993, much of it had been prepared earlier. In some respects, it was therefore not up to date and appeared not to be fully sensitive to the anxiety recently expressed about xenophobia and right-wing violence. He therefore welcomed the introduction by the representative of Germany, as it brought out facts not contained in the report and more fully expressed the concern of the German Government.
20. The report generally followed the guidelines, but the question arose as to why protection of minorities and other groups had been dealt with under article 2 and issues concerning foreigners under article 5. In his view, that approach gave the wrong impression that only those articles, and not the Convention as a whole, were relevant to such groups. He requested an explanation from the representative of Germany.
21. The question also arose of the division of responsibilities between the Federal State and the Länder. For instance, it was stated in paragraph 215 of the report that the preventive protection of foreigners and criminal prosecution measures were the responsibility of the Länder. According to the document of the Press and Information Office he had mentioned earlier, the Federal Government had only limited means at its disposal, because the courts, police, education, youth welfare services and cultural institutions, all crucial in the fight against extremist violence, fell within the purview of the Länder. He wished to emphasize that such a constitutional division of powers in no way relieved the Federal Government from full and fundamental responsibility under international law for implementation of the Convention. He took it that the representatives of Germany agreed with him on that point.
22. He noted that Germany had enacted legislation to implement the Convention, particularly articles 130 and 131 of the Penal Code, intended to give effect to article 4 of the Convention. However, in view of the serious nature of manifestations of racism and racial discrimination, which were not always effectively dealt with, particularly in such matters as access to employment, housing and the services referred to in article 5 (f) of the Convention, Germany should seriously consider enacting a comprehensive anti-discrimination law. Such a law would constitute a clear commitment to the view that racial discrimination was absolutely unacceptable. He would like to be informed of the German position on that matter.
23. He noted from paragraph 158 of the report that Germany still held the view that it had no legal obligation under the Convention to report on legislation concerning foreigners. The Committee did not share that view: in its General Recommendation XI (42), adopted in March 1993, it had affirmed that States parties were under an obligation to report fully on matters relating to legislation on foreigners and its implementation. It was often difficult to distinguish between acts of discrimination based on colour or ethnic origin and those based on nationality, and the racial discrimination issue could not be examined without taking into account the status of foreigners. He would like to know the views of the German delegation on that point.
24. He regretted that Germany had still not made the declaration under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention, particularly in view of its repeated pleas in international forums, that human rights mechanisms should be strengthened, for example, by the creation of an international court of human rights. The declaration by Germany was long overdue, particularly in view of the appeal made to States parties in paragraph 21 of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (A/CONF.157/23).
25. There had been a number of incidents of racial violence in Germany in which the police had remained passive and failed to give adequate protection to the victims, thereby giving tacit encouragement to the perpetrators of the attacks. There had also been incidents in which the police had themselves been implicated in acts of hostility towards foreigners. What was being done by the German authorities to strengthen the preventive and protective role of the police, particularly in areas with a high proportion of foreigners and asylum seekers? What was being done to facilitate complaints procedures, and to provide adequate training for law enforcement officials, in line with the Committee's General Recommendation XIII (42)?
26. It would seem from paragraph 125 of the report, as well as from the statement by the German representative, that manifestations of racial discrimination and xenophobia were held not to be structural in origin, but rather to result from the attitudes of isolated individuals and groups. Was that analysis correct, and did it not show a tendency to belittle a serious structural problem? Was it not time for a more comprehensive policy to combat racism and racial discrimination in Germany? Despite those difficulties, he had been heartened to note the massive demonstrations held in Germany to protest against racial discrimination, and the strong moral and political leadership provided by Chancellor Kohl.
27. It had often been suggested that covert xenophobia among the population was being fomented by politicians for electoral purposes. That was a disturbing phenomenon, which was found in a number of European countries, and he would welcome the views of the German delegation as well as of the Committee on how it might be dealt with.
28. He had been interested to note the information on measures taken to protect the Danish and Sorbian minorities. However, there was less cause for satisfaction where the protection of other groups was concerned: it had been reported that in 1992 the number of anti-Semitic attacks had doubled in comparison with the previous year. Paragraphs 72 to 83 of the report described at length a repatriation and reintegration scheme for Sinti and Romany asylum- seekers whose applications had been rejected, but it would seem that in fact the scheme had proved disappointing: for instance, nearly all repatriated Roma were still unemployed. The report did not mention the treaties concluded between Germany and Romania and between Germany and Bulgaria in 1992 to speed up the deportation of persons - many of them gypsies - whose asylum applications had been rejected. It had been questioned whether those treaties were in conformity with Germany's obligations under international law, notably under the Fourth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether Germany was showing the proper sensitivity towards persons whose forebears had suffered bitterly under Nazi persecution.
29. It was claimed in paragraph 91 of the report that the adult generation of persecuted Sinti and Romany living in Germany at the end of the war had been given adequate information about how to obtain compensation, but representatives of the Roma people contested that claim. Could the German delegation comment on that point?
30. Concerning penal arrangements and their effectiveness, dealt with in paragraphs 115 to 131 of the report, he would draw the attention of the German representative to the Committee's General Recommendation XV (42) on article 4 of the Convention. He understood that Germany envisaged making substantive changes in criminal law and procedure in order to combat extremist and xenophobic activities more effectively, and would appreciate more information. According to official sources, acts of violence against foreigners had increased by 160 per cent in 1992 in comparison with the previous year, and up to 22 July of the current year 1,180 serious crimes by extremist groups had been recorded as compared with 788 in the same period of 1992. Those were very disturbing developments, and showed that the new asylum law was not bringing a halt to violence.
31. He welcomed the information given in paragraphs 132 to 144 on the prohibition of racialist organizations in Germany, which was evidence that article 4 (b) of the Convention was being correctly implemented. He also welcomed the Government's endorsement of the final document of the Copenhagen Meeting on the Human Dimension of the CSCE (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe), condemning all forms of racial and ethnic hatred and xenophobia, a document which was binding on all participating States. He noted that the Copenhagen document made particular reference to the rights of the Roma and Sinti people.
32. Paragraphs 151 and 152 described steps taken to promote integration of foreigners in Germany. Would not a more generous policy regarding the granting of dual nationality assist in those efforts? Similarly, would it not promote social and political integration to grant foreigners the right to vote, and to stand for election at local level?
33. He understood that in July 1993, Germany had introduced a more restrictive asylum law than the one previously in force: he would like to receive more information in that respect. The impression was given in paragraph 156 that most asylum-seekers had no valid reason for seeking refugee status, given the fact that the Federal Office for the Recognition of Foreign Refugees had recognized only 6.9 per cent of applicants in 1991. If his information was correct, recognition rates were in fact higher if persons who had successfully appealed to the courts and received refugee status were taken into account. He would welcome further information.
34. Although the new Aliens Act referred to in paragraph 160 marked an advance in some respects, it would adversely affect young persons of foreign nationality with a criminal record, who would now be subject to expulsion even if they had lived all their lives in Germany. More details on that point would be welcome. The report gave an impressive account of efforts being made to integrate foreign workers socially and economically, with due regard for their cultural and religious heritage. In view of the fact that some 400,000 foreign workers of Kurdish origin were living in Germany, to what extent was their cultural identity taken into account in such efforts?
35. It was stated in paragraph 193 that German civil law made no specific provision for compensation for the victims of racial discrimination. However, he understood that a new law had recently been enacted to provide compensation for foreigners who had been victims of racist practices. Did that new law cover all victims of such practices, irrespective of how long they had been in Germany, and of whether or not they had legal status? He understood that the work of the ombudsmen for foreigners, described in paragraphs 200 to 203 of the report, was widely appreciated, but that their powers and resources were limited. Were there plans to strengthen their position, and in particular to entrust them with the kind of functions outlined in the Committee's General Recommendation XVII (42)?
36. While the report gave a good deal of information on measures taken to implement article 6 of the Convention both at the level of the Federal Government and at that of individual Länder, concern had been expressed in a number of quarters that in many instances the police had in fact failed to provide effective protection. He hoped that the German authorities would take those expressions of concern seriously.
37. He drew attention to the statement on page 16 of the revised document containing reservations, declarations and objections to the Convention (CERD/C.60/Rev.2) to the effect that the Convention should also apply to Land Berlin with effect from the date on which it entered into force for the Federal Republic of Germany. That statement was now an anachronism, and he suggested that the representative of Germany should request the Secretary-General that it be deleted.
38. He looked forward to hearing the response of the German delegation to the points he had raised. Ideally, the dialogue that was now in progress should not be confined to government officials and members of the Committee: it should be continued in Germany itself, and should involve all sectors of society.
39. Mr. GARVALOV said he had been very impressed both by the report itself and by the frankness shown by the German representative in his introductory statement. The qualities of the German report were all the more evident when it was compared with some other reports that had been presented at the current session.
40. The German representative had given a frank account of recent acts of xenophobia and racism, which posed a serious problem not only for Germany but for other European countries. In particular, he had referred to the role of media coverage in relation to acts of racist violence. In Bulgaria there was great concern that television coverage of recent events in Bosnia might fuel sentiments of a kind that would be detrimental to any attempt to halt the fighting, or to achieve consensus between the warring parties. The effects of media coverage of ethnic conflicts would need to be watched very carefully.
41. He would like to ask the German representative a question he had often put in the past to representatives of other States parties: were political parties with an ethnic basis, but which were not extremist or racist, allowed to register and to operate in Germany? On the evidence of the terminology used in the report, it would seem that there were only two minorities in Germany, the Danish minority and the Sorbian minority. Paragraph 85 stated that the Sinti and Romany gypsies and the Jews had been recognized as "racially persecuted groups". To his knowledge, there were also Turks, Italians, Poles and Czechs in Germany, as well as persons from the former Yugoslavia: why did they not feature in the report as ethnic groups or minorities? He pointed out that the final document of the Copenhagen Meeting on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, as well as the draft protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights Concerning the Rights of Minorities, made use of the term "national minorities". The question was of special interest to him in view of the very diverse ethnic population of his own country, Bulgaria.
42. He drew attention to paragraph 156 of the report, which stated that the recognition rate for asylum-seekers from Romania and Bulgaria was currently 0.2 per cent or less. In fact, the situation in Bulgaria was such that no citizen could have cause to seek asylum in any other country, although, of course, there would always be emigration, for a variety of reasons. The possibility that any Bulgarian might seek asylum in Germany could be described as infinitesimal. The situation was rather the reverse: some 15,000 people were currently seeking asylum in Bulgaria, which presented a considerable problem for the authorities.
43. Mrs. SADIQ ALI said that Germany was to be commended on a very comprehensive and frank report. Although xenophobia had reached dangerous levels, the Government had taken measures to combat it at Federal and Land levels and, according to the German delegation, it was now on the decline. It was to Germany's credit that it monitored and prosecuted neo-Nazi and racist behaviour. No industrialized State had welcomed more refugees in the turmoil following the dissolution of the Soviet bloc. Few treated newly arrived refugees, both political and economic, with more consideration. Most countries did not, as Germany did, make public detailed statistics of racist acts and attacks on foreigners (10,420 incidents and 15 deaths since the advent of widespread violence against foreigners in 1991). There were officially admitted to be some 6,500 militant right-wing activists in Germany, 70 per cent of whom were believed to be under the age of 20. The same proportions appeared to prevail in other European countries, but nowhere else had rallies protesting against racist attacks been on as large a scale as in Germany. Those were very hopeful signs.
44. Nevertheless, a few points called for clarification. Paragraph 32 of the report referred to a Foundation for the Sorbian People; she asked why the organization was described as non-independent and what that status signified. Elsewhere, it was said that most persons committing acts of an anti-Semitic nature were young adults or adolescents. When convicted, was any effort made to re-educate such offenders in prison? Were there any moves to change the emphasis from custody to remedial action or to change the social attitudes that prevented people from treating each other with the respect and dignity all human beings deserved, since changes of attitude were more important than law enforcement in keeping society healthy? When offenders were released, was their behaviour monitored? She would like further details of the integration policy mentioned in paragraph 201 of the report and asked whether such integration implied that minority groups would not be allowed to retain their special and individual identities. She would have preferred to see statistics by country of origin for all foreigners in Germany in the main text of the report, not in an annex.
45. Paragraph 244 of the report referred to poor training of the police. What was being done to improve such training with special reference to human rights? Was the need felt for better selection methods in recruitment for the police force? Amnesty International had alleged police collusion in racial hatred and human rights abuses; the police should be the very people investigating and preventing such acts. Amnesty International had recommended the introduction of pre-employment screening of police officers for racist attitudes and further training, or if appropriate, dismissal for police officers displaying racist attitudes. That would be in conformity with article 7 of the Convention. It was hoped that in its next report the German Government would describe any action taken in that respect. It had been further claimed that the definition of "disturbance of the peace" (sect. 125 of the Penal Code) was too narrow and that the necessary conditions of detention could in most cases not be met, especially for minors and young adults. What was being done to rectify that situation?
46. With regard to the question of foreign workers, a recent ILO report drew attention to discrimination said to be practised by the authorities in Bonn against former East Germans. Those authorities had been asked to inform the ILO what they intended to do to eliminate discrimination and provide equal opportunities for all employees regardless of race and national background. Such information would also be of considerable interest to the Committee.
47. In its paragraphs 219-224, the report highlighted action taken to counter nascent xenophobia. However, the social circumstances listed in paragraph 223 had nothing to do with foreigners. Foreign workers had, on the other hand, more than repaid the State for their stay. The Berlin newspaper Das Tagesspiegel in November 1993 commented that foreigners contributed more to the State than they cost it, noting that in 1990 the 5.2 million foreign workers and their dependants had paid DM 90 billion in West German taxes and social welfare contributions but had drawn only DM 65 billion in benefits from the State; 7.8 per cent of pension contributions was paid by foreign citizens, who received 1.9 per cent of the pensions paid out. She asked why, in that case, Germans should hold foreigners responsible for all their woes.
48. There were a little over 200,000 Turks in Germany, who had, like others, come by invitation of the former West Germany to do work its citizens did not want to do. She asked whether young West Germans were prepared to take over that work. Despite the amendment to article 16 of its Constitution, Germany could not sidestep its responsibilities to Turkish residents by amending the citizenship and immigration laws. What action were the Bonn authorities contemplating in that respect?
49. Surprisingly, Germany was still bringing workers in from countries of eastern Europe under limited contracts at a time when the authorities were insisting that everybody who had entered the country since 1988 must return home. She would like to know why the jobs those workers were being brought in to do had not been offered to young Germans.
50. In conclusion, she asked what the German Government was doing to create a greater awareness of the Convention in Germany and what was being done to adopt measures to implement article 7.
51. Mr. RECHETOV said the report was very well-structured and informative and welcomed the frankness with which the German delegation had spoken of the current problems. Referring to the statements in paragraphs 6 and 11 of the report that Germany was fulfilling its obligations under the Convention, he wondered whether any country was in fact in a position to make such a claim in view of the fact that there were gaps in all bodies of legislation.
52. The report appeared to imply that Germany provided different levels of protection for different minority groups. It was not clear how far that depended on the degree to which such groups were integrated into German life or on historical factors. He wondered whether any national or ethnic factors might be involved. It was noteworthy that the Danish minority, who were well integrated and were occupying territory they had inhabited for many centuries, enjoyed the highest level of protection; however, they were also Europeans and very close in culture to the Germans. He asked why paragraph 17 reported that precise figures for the Danish minority could not be ascertained, since specific numbers were in fact quoted.
53. The Sorbian minority appeared to have the next best level of protection. However, according to paragraph 41 of the report, although there were some Sorbs in the Saxony Parliament, they had not sought independent political representation as a national group and according to paragraph 42, a Sorb representative had rejected special voting arrangements for Sorbs. In view of the fact that in many countries a refusal by representatives of minority groups to serve the interests of their group would be harshly judged by that minority, he asked whether the Sorbian minority as a whole had been consulted in such decisions.
54. Paragraph 54 of the report stated that the Jewish population in Germany was protected by the laws of the Federal Republic. In view of the recent problems, he wondered whether there was not a need for specific provisions to protect Jews and asked whether any special efforts were being made under Federal law to protect that vulnerable section of the population.
55. With regard to gypsies, he noted that not all gypsies had been persecuted under National Socialism, since under its racist theories part of the gypsy minorities were accorded a place in its world order. He asked whether any seat in any elected body of the Federal Republic was held by any member of a gypsy minority, either as a representative of a minority or as an individual. He was concerned that paragraph 62 of the report implied that Sinti children were unable to study their mother tongue in school. Was that situation accepted by the Sintis or were they seeking opportunities to have their own culture and language taught in schools. He asked what position the law in Germany currently took in the case of gypsies without German nationality. The Committee had been told that such gypsies were no longer being expelled, but were the legal provisions that permitted the administrative authorities to order expulsion still in place?
56. He welcomed the information provided about the situation of racist organizations under German law and particularly welcomed the mention in paragraph 145 of the report of the condemnation of racial discrimination in the final document of the Copenhagen Meeting, on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, in which for the first time in an international instrument racial hatred and anti-Semitism had been bracketed together.
57. Although the situation as described in the report was on the whole satisfactory, some questions remained on the subject of immigration and in particular, as other Committee members had mentioned, of asylum. He recognized that Germany was in a difficult position, with very large numbers of persons from the eastern parts of Europe seeking entry to the country for economic reasons and prepared to go to considerable lengths to mislead the authorities in order to achieve their end. It was right that a receiving country should have clear and proper criteria for admitting emigrants. The provisions made in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees no longer always applied in particular cases and the problem was further complicated by the fact that during the Cold War the granting of asylum to migrants had been very politicized. He recalled that a few years previously, when a wave of immigrants was entering Germany from the Soviet Union, the German authorities had used financial incentives to encourage such persons to renounce their Soviet citizenship. He hoped that such requirements no longer existed and that persons were being permitted to hold dual nationality, since recognition of dual nationality could help to solve many humanitarian problems.
58. He appreciated the information provided with respect to implementation of article 6 of the Convention. Germany was making a firm effort in difficult circumstances to put an end to various forms of racial intolerance; that could be said of far too few States. However, like other members of the Committee, he was surprised that it had not made the declaration under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Germany was a country with open democratic institutions and had nothing to hide. It was also a country that was being looked to as a model for many new and emerging nations, such as the Baltic States. For that reason, not only Germans but others too would benefit from Germany's compliance with article 14.
59. Germany was a significant Power on the world stage, both politically and economically, and wielded considerable influence. Unfortunately, with regard to the former Yugoslavia, events in the focus of public opinion had led to the recognition of new subjects of international law in so hasty a manner that the question of minority rights and human rights as a whole in the areas concerned had not been thoroughly considered or properly resolved. There was much discussion about the need to bring persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity to justice. However, in his view, the same practice ought to be followed as at the Nuremberg trials where, before any individual was brought before the tribunal, an inquiry had been carried out into the role of national policies and political and other factors in shaping the context in which those offences had been committed.
60. Mr. DIACONU commended the responsible attitude of the German authorities in informing the Committee about the implementation of the Convention and about the situation in Germany. The German report was particularly important to the Committee in view of the country's role in Europe, with its large national and foreign population and its responsibility for peace in the region. He wished to know exactly which minority groups there were in Germany, particularly whether there were any groups other than those mentioned in the report. He further inquired about the future situation of the 6 million foreigners, many of whom had been resident in the country for a long time and would undoubtedly stay there. The report spoke of their integration, which might raise problems in terms of the Convention if that were interpreted as meaning that they would forfeit their ethnic, linguistic and cultural identity. He asked whether the German Government was giving consideration to recognizing the Turks, Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, Serbs and Croats as minorities and requested figures on each different population group.
61. The number and gravity of racist attacks were deeply disturbing, especially in view of the anti-Semitic or xenophobic nature of right-wing extremism. Although the report revealed the authorities' sensitivity to the problem, the explanations given were not reassuring, since they suggested that the situation could last for some time. What measure did the German Government intend to take to prevent and halt the wave of violence, which, in addition to violating human rights, might endanger Germany's democratic structures?
62. He noted in connection with article 4 of the Convention that German law did not directly prohibit associations engaging in racist propaganda, but only those whose activities or purposes conflicted with criminal laws or were directed against the constitutional order or the concept of international understanding. A number of associations had been dissolved, but 76 extreme right-wing organizations were reported to have been in existence in 1991. He asked whether a more direct ban might not be more useful in the present circumstances.
63. He agreed that the Convention did not apply to distinctions or restrictions between citizens and non-citizens, or to legislation on citizenship, but on condition that the State did not discriminate between different categories of foreigners on grounds of race, colour or ethnic or other origin. Further information was required on that subject. He did not agree, however, with the statement in paragraph 95 that individual claims for compensation for forced labour during the Second World War could be filed only for reparation from one State to another. He did not dispute the provisions of the 1947 peace treaties, but under international law individual claims could be submitted directly, without diplomatic protection.
64. He requested a comment from the German representatives about complaints by Sinti and Romany gypsies that when they were deported, any money they had on them was confiscated and they did not know where they could file complaints on that subject.
65. Mr. LECHUGA HEVIA said that although there was clearly no general public support for those who committed acts of racist violence and xenophobia, it was equally clear that the number and membership of such groups were increasing. He would be interested to hear the Government's views on whether the repeated acts of violence meant that the Government had not yet found effective measures to contain the wave of violence, possibly on account of the lack of appropriate legislation. On the subject of the police force, why was it that police action was said to be less effective in the eastern than in the western part of the country? Did the police not have the same instructions or means? He would also welcome some comment on why there was a larger number of racist and neo-Nazi groups in Germany than in other European countries. Was it due, for instance, to a particular social, political or cultural climate, to the lack of appropriate legislation or to police conduct?
66. Mr. de GOUTTES said that Germany's social, economic and political development and equilibrium could play a decisive role in Europe and the world. Against that background, he commended Germany's efforts to seek a coherent overall policy to resolve its problems, including the upsurge of xenophobia, and the very frank, substantive report and oral introduction. France, too, faced a similar phenomenon with the rise of extreme right-wing groups and xenophobic and racist attitudes. He appreciated the explanations given about the causes of growing xenophobia and racial violence, especially among young people. As observed in the report, that amply justified the need for education.
67. Endorsing the points made by Mr. van Boven, he said that the requirements of the Convention appeared to be fully met in domestic legislation. The question arose, however, of the implementation of the Convention in a State with a federal structure such as Germany. He asked how the Federal Government of Germany was fulfilling its responsibility of ensuring that the Convention was implemented fully in all Länder.
68. He, too, asked whether Germany was intending to accept individual communications by making the declaration under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Such a decision would corroborate Germany's resolute policy to combat racism and would be consistent with Germany's position and image regarding human rights.
69. In connection with article 4 of the Convention, he asked whether the German Government was considering supplementing its comprehensive penal provisions with penalties for discriminatory acts against foreigners in the private sector, such as in motor insurance, referred to in paragraph 194.
70. He noted from paragraph 134 of the report that two political parties had been banned, in 1952 and 1956 respectively, and asked whether, in view of the rise of extreme right-wing parties and their electoral successes, there had been any recent debate about banning such extremist parties. Similarly, the growing number and membership of extreme right-wing associations or organizations prompted the question whether any new prohibitions were envisaged.
71. In connection with article 5 of the Convention, he noted Germany's policy of integrating foreigners who had been resident in the country for a long time. Naturalization was an important means of integration, especially for young people. He agreed with previous speakers that the Aliens Act, which had entered into force on 1 January 1991, represented a new and significant step in that direction. He requested clarification of the conditions for the naturalization of foreigners who had been settled in the country for a long time. He also wished to know whether the ombudsmen for foreigners referred to in paragraphs 200-203 of the report were competent to receive individual communications or complaints, or, if not, whether such a measure was envisaged.
72. On the subject of racist attacks, covered by article 6, he noted the figures provided in paragraphs 210 and 211 of the report, supplemented by those given orally. Since the figures reportedly covered all offences committed against foreigners, with no differentiation for racist attacks, he asked whether more precise information could be provided in order to determine which cases were racially motivated. Regarding penalties for those guilty of such offences, he noted the explanations given by the German representative about Germany's reluctance to hand down harsh prison sentences on young people, in conformity with Council of Europe recommendations on the subject, but wondered whether prison sentences might not be justified in the event of very serious attacks, for preventive purposes. What alternative penalties were envisaged for young offenders committing racist acts? He asked whether the German delegation had any preliminary information about the findings of the study of young people, including questions on young people and violence, referred to in paragraph 225 of the report.
73. Mr. SHAHI welcomed the informative report, as updated orally. He was gratified to note that Germany was fully aware of the grave situation it faced with the upsurge of xenophobia and racial violence and appeared to have summoned the necessary will to shoulder its responsibilities in that regard. Such a position was very important for the future of Europe in the post-cold war era and the current climate of rising racial hatred and xenophobia. The impressive reaction of the German people to those baleful influences revived hopes that Germany would find a democratic solution to racial violence in the unified German State.
74. Although it was gratifying to hear that anti-racist measures were taking effect, the claim in paragraph 6 of the report that the requirements of the Convention were complied with in practice was somewhat doubtful in view of recent events.
75. Although it must be acknowledged that Germany's liberal asylum laws and hospitality had often been abused, he hoped that Germany would not depart from its liberal post-war philosophy in dealing with the problem. His comment was to be seen against the background of concern that, in the present European context, liberal principles seemed to be becoming a dead letter. In 1992, Germany had attracted some 800,000 immigrants or asylum-seekers, many of whom were Europeans of German descent. Since xenophobia was presumably directed mainly against non-German immigrants or asylum-seekers, exceptional measures needed to be taken to prevent racial discrimination against peoples of non-western or non-European origin.
76. He endorsed the comments by previous speakers that the police system needed to be strengthened and reorganized to deal with racist attacks.
77. While fully agreeing with Mr. van Boven's analysis and comments, he requested more information on the precise content of the laws facilitating the process of naturalization, referred to in paragraph 164. He, too, would welcome consideration by the German Government of further measures to integrate foreign minority groups, without prejudice to their group or individual rights to their own language, culture, etc. The issue of integration, relevant to many States, should be addressed immediately in order to avoid alienation of those groups and destabilization in the future. Finally, he supported the suggestion by Mr. van Boven that a comprehensive anti-discrimination law should be enacted, and stressed the importance of education in any coordinated, comprehensive policy for the elimination of racial discrimination.