Distr. GENERAL CERD/C/SR.1247 18 March 1998 ENGLISH Original: FRENCH

ORGANIZATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS (continued)

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS, COMMENTS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION

Fourteenth periodic report of the Russian Federation (continued)

Status report on the implementation of the Convention in Haiti

ORGANIZATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS (agenda item 5) (continued)

1. The CHAIRMAN announced that Mr. Ferrero Costa and Ms. Zou, members of the Committee, had informed the secretariat that they were unable to participate for the moment in the Committee's work. The secretariat had also been informed that Mr. Wolfrum, a re-elected member of the Committee, probably would not attend the current session. On the other hand, he had not received any word from Ms. McDougall, a newly elected member of the Committee. Finally, he had received voluminous correspondence from non-governmental organizations and the press and would see that it was distributed to Committee members.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS, COMMENTS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION (agenda item 7) (continued)

Fourteenth periodic report of the Russian Federation (CERD/C/299/Add.15; HRI/CORE/1/Add.52/Rev.1) (continued)

2. At the invitation of the Chairman, the delegation of the Russian Federation took places at the Committee table.

3. The CHAIRMAN invited the delegation of the Russian Federation to reply to the questions put by Committee members at the previous meeting.

4. Mr. ABDULATIPOV (Russian Federation) said he was gratified by the regular dialogue established between the Committee and the Russian Federation, which had proven to be extremely useful to his delegation. It had categorized the 40 or so questions put to it by the members of the Committee, and the competent members of the delegation would reply to them.

5. Mr. ZORIN (Russian Federation), speaking as President of the Committee on Nationalities of the State Duma, said that the activities of Parliament had undergone major changes due in large part to previous questions and comments by members of the Committee on the laws concerning nationalities and autonomy.

6. In reply to the questions asked by Mr. Valencia Rodriguez and Mr. van Boven, particularly on the status of the laws mentioned in paragraph 24 of the periodic report (CERD/C/299/Add.15), he explained that the National Cultural Autonomy Act had entered into force a year and a half earlier; the act on the foundation for the legal status of Russia's small indigenous peoples had been adopted by the Duma but had not yet been signed and a new bill would be considered in 1998. The Peoples of Russia (Languages) Act had been approved by a majority of the Duma and was to be referred to the Federal Assembly, where the applicable procedure would be followed. The Refugees and Displaced Persons (Assistance Fund) Act and the Indigenous Peoples of the Far East Act were under consideration and consultations were being conducted with the various bodies of the Federation and other organs involved. Finally, the Regions of Traditional Land Use Act was being studied by the Federal Assembly.

7. The authorities of the Russian Federation planned to amend and modify federal legislation in order to establish an independent budget line for all credits earmarked for financing relations among nationalities and the Federation; in that way the implementation of those projects could be better monitored. Likewise, a bill ratifying the framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities would be examined by the Committee on International Affairs, which intended to recommend its ratification to the Duma.

8. Concerning the prohibition of incitement to racial hatred, steps were being taken to amend the relevant laws in force, and the Penal Code in particular.

9. In reply to Ms. Sadiq Ali's question on the protection of the languages of national minorities, he recalled that the Peoples of Russia (Languages) Act contained important provisions intended to protect and promote the rights of national minorities. Moreover, the Education Act of 1992 granted to citizens the right to primary education in their national language subject to the resources available to the educational system. Lastly, the Act of 12 October 1992 guaranteed the right of peoples and other minorities to the protection and development of their culture and their historical habitat. Cultural autonomy was guaranteed to all stateless minorities and the National Minorities Act provided for the promulgation of necessary legislation to promote minority educational and cultural establishments.

10. In reply to Mr. Diaconu's question concerning the method used to draw up the list of nationalities, he said that the law allowed individuals to declare their nationality themselves during the census. The Tatars and the Crimean Tatars were different peoples, particularly in culture and language, but they were both of the Muslim religion. There were many other stateless nationalities, such as the Bulgarian minority. However, the Government was not conducting an ethnic minority assimilation policy. The National Minorities Act guaranteed the cultural development of citizens who did not find it useful to unite in order to protect their culture. Moreover, many persons belonging to ethnic minorities were dispersed throughout the country, which made it difficult to provide them with special education. Nevertheless, they could learn their national language in special classes and Sunday schools, which were increasing in number.

11. With regard to the questions put by Mr. van Boven and Mr. Lechuga Hevia on combating Fascism, he explained that the Duma was putting the finishing touches to a bill intended to combat that scourge and that the President had issued a decree to that effect.

12. Mr. KEHLEROV (Russian Federation), speaking in his capacity as the Deputy Procurator General of the Russian Federation, said that the Office of the Procurator occupied a key position in the judicial system. In addition to its own functions, it defended citizens against abuse of power by officials. In 1997, it had obtained redress for individuals in 70,000 cases where officials had failed to do their duty, and in particular 30,000 cases involving the rights and freedoms of citizens. On that occasion, it had initiated proceedings against 60,000 culpable officials. The Office of the Procurator was at present the only body which defended the interests of Russian citizens free of charge. Any individual could apply to it and it was under an obligation to initiate proceedings.

13. In reply to a question by Mr. Valencia Rodriguez, he said that article 282 of the Penal Code, which protected the rights of the individual, had been incorporated into the provisions on violations of State security because article 2 of the Constitution stated that man and his rights and freedoms were the supreme value that should be protected by the State. Any violation of the rights of citizens was thus considered as a breach of the constitutional regime of the State. Likewise, crimes motivated by racial or ethnic hatred were of course penalized, in accordance with article 4 of the Convention, but such motives were considered as aggravating circumstances. For example, article 305 of the Penal Code, which established a maximum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment for crimes under ordinary law, stated that the punishment could be increased to 20 years' imprisonment, life imprisonment or even capital punishment if the crime included an element of national, religious or ethnic hatred.

14. With regard to the questions put by Mr. Valencia Rodriquez, Mr. de Gouttes and Mr. van Boven concerning the implementation of legislative provisions guaranteeing the protection of citizens, he cited several cases in which article 282 had led to prison sentences for persons responsible for anti-Semitic publications. Similarly, article 294 of the Penal Code had allowed the prosecution of other authors of anti-Semitic articles. While the number of cases of incitement to racial hatred was not particularly high, the State was conducting a rigorous and determined policy to combat them and was gradually establishing a legal basis on which to ensure full respect for the Convention.

15. The CHAIRMAN welcomed the many measures taken to punish acts of discrimination against Jews. As the only representative of the African continent on the Committee, he personally would like to know what the Government was doing to combat the discrimination and harassment to which Africans in the Russian Federation were subject, particularly students at Patrice Lumumba University. Had measures similar to those for the protection of Jews been taken to protect African students and persons of colour in general?

16. Mr. KEHLEROV (Russian Federation) said that any complaint by an individual reporting discrimination on racial or religious grounds was duly examined by the authorities, who took the appropriate measures in accordance with the law. That was a position of principle which was strictly observed.

17. Mr. SHAHRAY (Russian Federation), speaking in his capacity as the representative of the President of the Russian Federation to the Constitutional Court, replying to Ms. Sadiq Ali's question concerning the indication of nationality on new passports, recalled that article 26 of the Constitution granted to each individual the right to determine his nationality and national identity. The question which arose in practice was where and at what time could the citizen exercise that right. He could do so from the age of 14, when his first passport was issued. In that regard, the census which would take place in 1999 would allow each citizen to determine his nationality in accordance with the legislation in force.

18. In reply to the question concerning possible violations of the moratorium on capital punishment, he explained that, following the message of the President of the Russian Federation, not a single death sentence had been reported. Moreover, since the promulgation of the Presidential Decree on the subject, and in addition to any application for pardon, no executions had taken place. The State Duma had resumed consideration of the moratorium bill and it was not impossible that the legislature would eliminate that penalty from the Penal Code, especially since the Russian Federation had signed Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the abolition of the death penalty - an international instrument which took precedence over national legislation. With regard to the fear that Shariah would be imposed in the Chechen Republic, he said that fortunately it had not been applied in recent times.

19. It appeared that some members regarded the practice of registering individuals, and refugees in particular, as a violation of the Convention; the Constitutional Court shared that view, since it had confirmed that any restriction of the right to establish residence or of freedom of movement was in violation of article 27 of the Constitution. To take just one example, the Ministry of the Interior had denied a Georgian detained in the Russian Federation authorization to return to Georgia and had been obliged to go back on its decision and grant the person concerned the passport he required. In January 1998, the Constitutional Court had identified three provisions in the legislation on the registration of citizens of the Russian Federation and other persons residing voluntarily in the country as being not in conformity with the Constitution. The relevant laws were being amended and henceforward a citizen would himself determine his place of residence; that would automatically settle the question of registration.

20. The Russian Federation's Ombudsman Act had been promulgated and applications for the post were being awaited; it should be filled within the year. The Commission on Human Rights comprised well-known specialists and was functioning satisfactorily. It submitted an annual report to the President, who had decided that 1998 would be a year for the protection of human rights.

21. One expert had expressed surprise that the Rostov court should have found the Cossack Union to be illegal without immediately prohibiting that organization. He explained that if the statutes of an organization was not at variance with the Constitution - if in general they observed the letter of constitutional law - the Minister of Justice could not refuse to register it. He had done so in the case of the frankly fascist organization "Russian Unity", but to forbid the Cossack Union would have required a judicial decision that could be taken only if that organization disregarded the warnings it had received.

22. With regard to questions on languages, he informed the Committee of a case at present before the Constitutional Court which involved two republics, namely, the Mari Republic and the Bashkir Republic, whose Constitution required any candidate for the presidency to know its language. That was a delicate matter, but there was no doubt that the Constitutional Court would be able to protect the equality of citizens regardless of membership of a national group while taking into account the fact that the two republics were part of the Russian Federation and had the right to their own language in addition to Russian.

23. One very important question had concerned the means by which the Constitution, and hence the Convention, could be invoked, before the courts. That could be done in four ways. First, the Constitutional Court could give a ruling since its decisions were irrevocable and took precedence over those of other bodies; it had thus reviewed 36 decisions taken by various republics. Second, the President could oppose the decisions of regional authorities if they violated the Constitution, as had already happened 12 times. Third, the Constitutions of the various republics were slowly but surely coming into line with that of the Russian Federation. Fourth, cooperation mechanisms among central and regional bodies had been established on the basis of agreements, which could be concluded only with Federation entities whose Constitutions were in conformity with that of the Federation.

24. What he been decided was part of a long-term process that would not produce results immediately but was well under way.

25. Mr. Diaconu took the Chair.

26. Mr. TSAGALOV (Russian Federation), after welcoming the interest and understanding shown by the Committee, said that, as the Deputy Minister on Nationalities, he would reply to the question on the application of article 6 of the Convention concerning reparation for damage suffered as a result of discrimination. The compensation process was proceeding in a satisfactory manner. The steps taken on behalf of the victims of discrimination were of a political, social and financial nature. Specifically, for example, the Karachai-Cherkes Republic had greatly benefited from the Russian Federation's 1997 budgetary appropriation of 96.9 billion roubles for the implementation of the Territorial Rehabilitation of Repressed Peoples Act; the victims of political repression had received some 3.4 billion roubles and victims of forced displacement 9.2 billion. That compensation served as reparation not only for wrongs caused in the political sphere or by the illegal confiscation of property, for example, but also as assistance in the areas of employment, education and health care.

27. With regard to the results of the new legislation on relations between nationalities, he explained that a Federal National Cultural Autonomy Act guaranteed the right to the cultural autonomy of citizens wherever they lived as well as the rights of national minorities. An advisory council on the autonomy of national minorities under Mr. Abdulatipov, Head of the Delegation, consisting of representatives of the most diverse nationalities and minorities, monitored the application of the many measures taken to promote cultural autonomy, and in particular the publication of books or newspapers in national languages. In Moscow alone, 146 different nationalities lived side by side, and he could not point to a single example of conflict among them, even when disputes occurred in their places of origin. Any activities undertaken in the area of cultural autonomy would certainly promote the development of the communities concerned.

28. As for the question whether there was a nationalities policy at the federal level, he noted that a federal programme was being developed that would include numerous subprogrammes aimed at various groups - Turkmens, the peoples of the North or others. The Ministry of Nationalities, for its part, was implementing a number of programmes. For example, it had drawn up a schedule of Gypsy cultural events and had earmarked 150 million roubles for the development of Gypsy culture. It was also promoting the development of numerically small peoples, whose schools and places of worship had been reopened. All those initiatives had begun to produce good results. The numerically small peoples of the North and Far East in particular would be provided with State support under a presidential programme which was to be implemented by the year 2000 by the competent federal committee in the framework of the International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples. There were plans to assist those who left the north in finding housing and employment.

29. A programme was being implemented to resolve the conflict in the Republic of North Ossetia/Alania between Ossetes and Ingush. The presidents elected respectively by the Ingush and the Ossetes had met very recently and the conflict between those two people should be resolved in the near future.

30. An amount of 6 billion roubles was to be earmarked for the nationalities programme in 1998 in the form of an independent budget line. Furthermore, 12 million roubles were available in the Fund for the Renascence of the Peoples of Russia. In addition, some programmes were directed specifically at the peoples of the North and the Chukchis, as well as peoples deported because of their nationality.

31. The problem faced by the Meshket Turks and the Gypsies were of long standing. The former had been forced to leave Georgia, the country where they had their roots, and were at present in transit in Russia. It was paradoxical that the High Commissioner for Refugees had stressed the responsibility of Russia whereas it was Georgia that would not allow the Meshket Turks to return to their lands. As for the Gypsies, with whom he had long been acquainted, he assured the Committee that their situation was satisfactory.

32. Mr. TARASOV (Russian Federation), speaking in his capacity as Deputy Director of the Law Department of the office of the President, said that citizens themselves voluntarily indicated their mother tongue and the national group to which they belonged during the census. The concept of a people was used in the Constitution to determine the common characteristics of a group. If that group was resident in the Russian Federation, it became a people of the Russian Federation. The term national minority meant a group of persons essentially residing outside the Russian Federation.

33. The Constitutional Court, the President of the Federation and senior officials were making every effort to introduce reforms in cases where there was a conflict between the Constitution and the Convention and the Ministry of Justice was conducting a study to identify such cases. Judges, lawyers, officials of the Ministry of the Interior and all persons responsible for ensuring respect for the rights of citizens studied the various international instruments relating to their special fields during their training.

34. Mr. KEHLEROV (Russian Federation), stressed that the events which had occurred in Chechnya were a real tragedy for Russian and that it would take a great deal of time and wisdom to get over them. It was undeniable that both sides had committed war crimes in the Chechen Republic. Numerous cases of homicide, looting and assault had been brought before the courts and 23 persons had been convicted.

35. However, there was no discrimination against Chechens and many Chechens were working in various ministries and other public agencies.

36. Mr. RAMISHVILI (Russian Federation) speaking in his capacity as the head of the Department of Human Rights of the Russian Federation Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that, in accordance with article 15 of the Constitution, the international treaties to which the Russian Federation was a party had the force of law and were a part of the national legal system. The principle of the primacy of international law was recognized and the Constitutional Court took due account of various international treaties. He regretted, however, that he was unable to inform the Committee of any case in which the Convention might have been invoked before a court.

37. There was nothing to prevent refugees who were not Russian citizens, such as Armenians and Azerbaijanis, from requesting Russian nationality. He stressed that the legislation was liberal and even provided for dual nationality. It was in the State's interest that those refugees obtained Russian nationality, since it would then no longer have to pay them allowances in respect of their status.

38. The Russian Federation had no objection to ratifying the amendment to article 8 of the Convention, but had thus far been unable to do so because of its financial situation and red tape. The Government would propose its ratification to the Legislature within a few months.

39. The Government had initiated the ratification procedure for ILO Convention No. 169 concerning indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries.

40. The Russian Federation recognized the Committee's competence to receive communications from individuals; Russian citizens were fairly well informed about international procedures in that respect. There were many human rights organizations in the Russian Federation and in any event, the authorities were under a duty to consider complaints or, if necessary, to transmit them to the competent bodies. In addition, all relevant information was published in the Official Gazette.

41. Jews who had been deprived of Russian nationality and emigrated to Israel could return to the Russian Federation and again obtain Russian citizenship.

42. The new Freedom of Conscience Act was in conformity with the spirit and the letter of the Convention and its application in the various regions of the Federation was monitored by a State commission on religious questions and the restitution of property confiscated from certain religious communities.

43. Mr. ABDULATIPOV (Russian Federation) said, in conclusion, that the detailed replies which the delegation had provided to the experts demonstrated the Government's keen interest in the work of the Committee and in the Convention. As the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, he assured the Committee that the Government was making every effort to reflect the provisions of the Convention in national legislation and put them into practice. The comments of Mr. Valencia Rodriguez and other members of the Committee would provide the State with guidance in its implementation of the Convention. He stressed that the Government was intent on cooperating with the Committee, and was pleased that the experts had appreciated the size of the delegation and the fact that it represented the various nationalities and administrations of the Russian Federation. Finally, he thanked Mr. Rechetov for his assistance in drafting the delegation's reports.

44. The CHAIRMAN thanked the Russian delegation for its detailed replies to the Committee's questions.

45. Mr. ABOUL-NASR also thanked the delegation for its extensive replies to the Committee's questions, but said he was not satisfied by the statement that there was no discrimination in the Russian Federation. The Committee had always rejected that sort of statement because it believed that cases of discrimination occurred throughout the world. Such problems should be resolved and their existence not denied. He was personally aware of the case of an African student, who, because he was seeing a Russian girl student had been ill-treated and roughed up. It was to be hoped that, in the next report, the Government would describe all the types of discrimination which occurred in the Russian Federation and indicate what action had been taken. Finally, it would also be helpful for the Committee to be informed about the status of certain minorities.

46. Mr. YUTZIS said that he had found many of the delegation's replies useful. Since he was unaware of the extent of the financial resources allocated to the programme of assistance to minorities, he asked the Government to indicate in its next report the equivalent in United States dollars and as a proportion of the gross domestic product. He would also like to know what timetable had been drawn up for the implementation of the various programmes aimed at improving the application of the Convention.

47. In his view, Russian citizenship should be restored to those citizens who had been deprived of it without requiring them to request it; he would appreciate clarification of that matter. Lastly, referring to annex 3, paragraph 6 of the periodic report, which stated that the Russian and Russian-speaking inhabitants of Chechnya had been subjected to intensified psychological pressure, were the victims of an increasing number of crimes, and that a policy of "ethnic cleansing" was in effect, he stressed that the term ethnic cleansing should be used with great care. In his view, it could not be stated that the acts of the Chechens referred to in that paragraph constituted ethnic cleansing against Russian citizens or Russian speakers.

48. Mr. van BOVEN said that, despite the explanations provided by the Russian delegation, he remained uncomfortable with the tone and terminology used in annex 3 of the periodic report to describe the Chechen conflict. When the Deputy Procurator General of the Russian Federation, Mr. Kehlerov, had stated that there had been 23 convictions for crimes committed during the conflict, he had the feeling that he was referring more to offences under ordinary law than to crimes against humanitarian law. Perhaps that was explained by problems of interpretation, but he would appreciate clarification of the matter.

49. Acknowledgement of the fact that abuses, including those of a criminal nature, had been committed seemed to be a prerequisite for any reconciliation process. However, such a process would admittedly take time and was above all an internal matter.

50. To end on an optimistic note, he had that morning received a detailed report on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation issued by a non-governmental organization in Moscow. The fact that such reports, which in the past had come from abroad, had reached him directly from the Russian Federation was a positive development that should be highlighted.

51. He hoped that, in its next report, the Russian Federation would take due account of the Committee's guidelines and the comments made during the current session.

52. The CHAIRMAN, speaking as a member of the Committee, noted that ethnic cleansing was not always practised by the dominant majority; it could also be practised by minorities. The Committee should take that fact into account and vigorously condemn such activities, regardless who was responsible for them. He pointed out that his observation was of a preliminary nature and not connected with the situation in the Russian Federation.

53. Mr. ABDULATIPOV (Russian Federation) said that his delegation did not claim to have replied to all the questions put; it had come to engage in a frank dialogue with the Committee in an attempt to take stock of the situation and to seek, with the help of members, solutions to the problems it faced.

54. He acknowledged that cases of racial discrimination persisted in day-to-day life in the Russian Federation, even if they were condemned by the State. However, the rights of Russians, as well as those of Chechens or other minorities, might well be violated. Contrary to what some had stated, the Chechen minority was not systematically denigrated by Russians, and many persons had come to their defence, which was undoubtedly the first time that that had happened in a conflict of that type.

55. He was quite surprised to learn that the term ethnic cleansing had been used in the French and English versions of the periodic report, since the Russian Federation had never used it in its reports. Incidentally, that term would be unacceptable from the standpoint of Russian legislation and the Constitution.

56. The implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination would be a lengthy process, but the Russian Federation would devote every effort to that task, taking its inspiration from the Committee's comments and guidelines.

57. Mr. VALENCIA RODRIGUEZ (Country Rapporteur), summarizing the main points of the discussion, said that the Committee had noted with satisfaction that the Russian Constitution already contained important provisions on the principle of equality before the law. The rest of its legislation must be brought into line with the Constitution, however, and in particular the new Penal Code should be revised in the light of article 4 of the Convention so as to prohibit organizations or associations which incited racial discrimination and hatred. Its legislation should also be amended to give effect to article 5 of the Convention and to prohibit any discrimination on the basis of race or national or ethnic origin, in particular with regard to the exercise of such fundamental rights as freedom of movement within the national territory and the right to a nationality. Concerning article 6, more detailed and explicit information should be provided on the legal remedies available in cases of discrimination. Likewise, more complete information concerning article 7, which was important in many respects, would be appreciated. The measures taken to increase the independence of the judiciary were welcome and the action of the Procurator General was commendable; those efforts should be continued and the Committee kept informed about progress made in that area. Important, but as yet inadequate, measures had been taken concerning nationality. In view of the country's ethnic diversity, national languages must be promoted and protected. The Committee recommended that steps should be taken to improve the socio-economic status of minorities, and of the Gypsy minority in particular. He hoped that more detailed information on that subject would be provided in the next report.

58. He would also like to know what progress had been made on the elaboration of the various federal laws referred to in paragraph 24 of the report and would appreciate copies once they had been adopted. As regards the settlement of the Chechen conflict, there had been some positive developments, but steps should be taken to solve the problems mentioned in annex 3, paragraph 6. Lastly, the information provided on the situation in Ossetia and Ingushetia was not sufficiently detailed.

59. In conclusion, the Committee recommended that the Russian Federation should disseminate the report - as well as the comments made by experts - widely and provide the public with any useful information in order to facilitate the implementation of article 14 of the Convention.

60. The delegation of the Russian Federation withdrew.

61. Mr. Aboul-Nasr resumed the Chair.

Review of the implementation of the Convention in Haiti

62. Mr. de GOUTTES (Country Rapporteur) recalled that, at its fifty-first session in August 1997, the Committee had received a note verbale from the Government of Haiti requesting it to defer consideration of the situation in that country to 1998 by which time it hoped to be able to submit a report. However, the Committee had decided to discuss that situation briefly in order to indicate its interest and to stress the following points which it hoped would be given priority in the next periodic report of Haiti: the ethnic composition of the Haitian population; socio-economic indicators of non-integration or marginalization of the most disadvantaged social groups; discrimination against the black, mulatto and white population; and judicial statistics concerning racist crimes and measures taken to promote the implementation of the Convention. A letter signed by the Chairman of the Committee had been sent to Haiti requesting replies to those questions in its report, if necessary with the assistance of the advisory services of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

63. The Committee had as yet received nothing from the Haitian Government and the only available information concerning the evolution of the situation in that country consisted of a report dated 17 October (A/52/499) by an independent expert, Mr. Adama Deng, and a report by the United Nations Secretary-General dated 22 October 1997 (A/52/515).

64. In his report, Mr. Deng emphasized the deterioration of socio-economic conditions in Haiti, which had resulted in strikes and was conducive to violence. Although the human rights situation in general had improved, instances of violations of those rights or, "political violence" persisted. In his view, the withdrawal of the United Nations missions (MITNUH and MICIVIH) could have tragic consequences for the future of Haiti and the democratization process.

65. The conclusions of the Secretary-General's report, to which he referred members of the Committee, were along the same lines.

66. Regarding the recommendations to be made to the Haitian Government, he suggested the following course of action. The Committee could invite the Haitian Government to submit its report in August 1998; remind it of the terms of the letter sent by the Chairman of the Committee in August 1997; request it to take into consideration, in addition to the five points listed in that letter, the conclusions of the reports of Mr. Adama Deng and the Secretary-General dated 17 and 22 October 1997; and finally, suggest once again that it should request the assistance of the advisory services of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights if that would be helpful.

67. The CHAIRMAN proposed that course of action suggested by the Rapporteur should be adopted.

68. It was so decided.