International Instruments on prohibition of caste based discremination
Before 1945, the prohibition of discrimination was only dealt with in the so-called minority treaties, which were severely limited in their scope. With the adoption of the UN charter, a non-discrimination clause applying to everyone became a recognized part of international law. The idea that the United Nations should become the international protector of the rights of the individual grew out of the tragic experience of the Second World War and the horrendous violations of human rights committed in the Holocaust. Many wartime leaders believed that the rise of Hitler could have been averted had there existed a strong international organization with the authority to address human rights issues in the 1930’s. These leaders felt it was critical that the experience with the inter-war League of Nations, which was weak and lacked the power to deal with human rights issues, not be repeated. It was therefore expected that the UN Charter would contain provisions establishing an effective system for the protection of human rights. Unlike the League Covenant, which specifically excludes mention of racial and religious equality, the United Nations Charter drawn up at San Francisco has the promotion of human rights - in particular equality and non-discrimination - as one of its basic provisions. One delegate to the Third Committee went so far as to say that the “United Nations Organization had been founded principally to combat discrimination in the world.” The three main provisions discussing human rights in the UN Charter are Articles 1(3), 55(c) and 56. In addition, other Articles of the Charter make it clear that human rights protection is a fundamental part of the UN’s mission: the Charter states that the UN aims to “develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”4 and “promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.”
However, these provisions did not establish immediate obligations to guarantee or observe human rights, nor did they define what was meant by “human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Instead, they imposed the vague obligation to “promote…universal respect for, and the observance of, human rights” and to take “joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organization” to achieve this purpose. The only unambiguous provision in the Charter is the prohibition of discrimination.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
At the inaugural conference of the United Nations held in April 1946, the representatives of Cuba, Mexico and Panama had proposed that the conference should adopt a declaration on the essential rights of man. However, there was insufficient time available to discuss the proposal, and at the first session of the UN General Assembly, Panama submitted a draft declaration on fundamental human rights and freedoms. The General Assembly decided to refer the draft to the Economic and Social Council for detailed consideration by its Commission on Human Rights. The Commission spent two years working on a draft, with the instruction that the bill should be acceptable to all, short, simple and easy to understand. The draft bill was presented to the third session of the
General Assembly, and in December 1948 Resolution 217A was adopted, known thereafter as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) elaborates the UN Charter’s equal rights prescriptions; the principle of equality pervades the declaration. Of the thirty articles, some are in one way or another explicitly concerned with equality, and the rest implicitly refer to it by emphasizing the all-inclusive scope of the UDHR, as in the following Articles (emphasis added):
· Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
· Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
· Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
· Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
Just beneath the Charter and the Universal Declaration in importance are two international covenants which offer detailed provisions and provide means of implementation: the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966), and the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966). The principal clause on non-discrimination is found in Article 26 of the ICCPR:
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
The ICESCR also contains general and specific non-discrimination clauses, which are similar to the ICCPR.
Treaties in Specific Fields
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD, 1965) is one of the first major conventions to elaborate on the contents of one of the non-discrimination grounds of the UDHR. Although it largely repeats the discrimination provisions of the covenants, its existence as a separate instrument underscores the significance which the international community places on non-discrimination. Another addition to the body of United Nations equal rights jurisprudence is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), promulgated in 1979.
Regional Human Rights Conventions
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR,1950) and the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR,1969) also contain similar non-discrimination clauses. (ECHR Article 14, ACHR Article 24)
The ICCPR and ICESCR neither define the term “discrimination” nor indicate what constitutes discrimination. However, CERD Article 1 defines racial discrimination as any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on the equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. CEDAW Article 1 also defines “discrimination against women” as any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any
Although these conventions deal only with cases of discrimination on specific grounds, the term discrimination should be understood to imply any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference which is based on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on equal footing, of all rights and freedoms.
From the definitions of discrimination provided in the above-mentioned conventions, we can see that a universal ‘composite concept of discrimination’ can contain the following elements:
· Stipulates a difference in treatment;
· And has a certain effect;
· Which is based on a certain prohibited ground.
International Covenant on The Elimination of All Forms Of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) was adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly (GA) in 1965 and entered into force in 1969. As of 5 July 2011, there are 174 States parties to ICERD. As its name shows this Convention (or sometimes called “treaty”) is explicitly devoted to the elimination of racial discrimination. ICERD is legally binding for member State parties; each State has the obligation to uphold and implement all provisions of the Convention. However, in some cases, a State may make a declaration or reservation on particular articles of ICERD.
The Convention consists of a preamble and 25 articles divided into three parts: the first part sets out the definition and scope of racial discrimination prohibited by ICERD (Article 1) and States parties’ obligations (Article 2 - 7); the second part deals with the establishment of a monitoring body, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and its work (Article 8 - 16); and the third part handles other technical matters (Article 17 - 25). CERD has also issued a number of General Recommendations on various topics in order to shape the scope of the Convention more clearly and to assist States in interpreting and implementing its provisions.
Historical background of ICERD
For many years, the struggle against racial discrimination was closely linked with anti-colonialism. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, with countries in the South becoming members of the UN, the UN developed significant political and legal norms through several instruments such as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1963). However, it should be observed that the rationale of the majority behind the adoption of these declarations was to put an end to discriminatory practices in other States, whereas the idea that discrimination could also exist in the domestic realm was largely ignored. The almost unanimous condemnation by States of apartheid as an institutionalized policy and practice in South Africa led to an important leap forward in the fight against discrimination. This was the belief that the racist practices of one State can be a legitimate concern of others, thus curtailing the principle of national sovereignty. It is in this historical context that ICERD was adopted in 1965 by the GA with its clear reference to apartheid in Article 3.
Definition and grounds of racial discrimination
Article 1, Para. 1 of ICERD defines the concept of racial discrimination as follows:
“any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
The definition of ICERD sets out five grounds of discrimination; it includes not only race, but also colour, descent, and national or ethnic origin. There is no hierarchy among these five categories and any discrimination based on them should be addressed comprehensively. CERD also stresses that, according to this definition, the Convention relates to all persons who belong to different races, national or ethnic groups or to indigenous peoples.Regarding the question of who belongs to which group, it is the opinion of CERD that the identification of individuals as being members of a particular racial or ethnic group “shall, if no justification exists to the contrary, be based upon self-identification by the individuals concerned.”
Racial discrimination exists in every country
Sometimes State parties argue that racial discrimination does not exist in its territory. However, CERD has a contrary view that no country can claim that racial discrimination is non-existent in its territory. In the consideration of its 15th to 20th periodic report of the Philippines, the State party stated that racial discrimination has never officially or factually existed there, neither in a systematic, formal nor intermittent or isolated manner. Responding to this statement, CERD expressed its view and made recommendations as follows: “While the denial of the existence of formal racial discrimination might be acceptable, the Committee wishes to note that even well-intentioned or neutral policies may directly or indirectly have negative or undesired effects on race relations and lead to de facto discrimination. The Committee reiterates its observations that no country can claim that racial discrimination is non-existent in its territory, and that an acknowledgment of the existence of the phenomenon is a necessary precondition for the fight against discrimination”.
Common victims of racial discrimination - vulnerable groups
There are some groups or individuals, empirically identified by CERD, who are generally more vulnerable to racial discrimination prohibited by ICERD. These are among others: minority groups (e.g. ethnic, national or linguistic); indigenous peoples; migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. These groups of individuals have indeed often been identified by CERD as victims of racial discrimination in many societies throughout the world. Regarding indigenous peoples, the Committee issued its General Recommendation No. 23 (1997) and affirmed that dis-crimination against indigenous peoples falls under the scope of ICERD.
Discrimination based on “descent”
In 2002, CERD issued General Recommendation No. 29 confirming its consistent view that the term “descent” does not solely refer to “race” and has a meaning and application which complement the other prohibited grounds of discrimination. It further stresses that:
“discrimination based on "descent" includes discrimination against members of communities based on forms of social stratification such as caste and analogous systems of inherited status which nullify or impair their equal enjoyment of human rights”
The Committee also sets out the following factors in identifying descent-based communities suffering from discrimination:
· inability or restricted ability to alter inherited status;
· socially enforced restrictions on marriage outside the community;
· private and public segregation, i.e. in housing and education, access to public spaces, places of worship and public sources of food and water;
· limitation of freedom to renounce inherited occupations or degrading or hazardous work;
· subjection to debt bondage;
· subjection to dehumanizing discourses referring to pollution or untouchability; and
· generalized lack of respect for their human dignity and equality.
It can be seen that this General Recommendation has contributed to bringing the issue of descent-based discrimination to light. Indeed, since its issuance the number of cases in which the Committee expresses its concern regarding descent-based discrimination has increased. Examples can be found in the consideration of the State reports of: Mali and Senegal (2002); Ghana, Republic of Korea and the UK (2003); Nepal, Madagascar and Mauritania (2004); Nigeria (2005); Yemen (2006, 2011); India (2007); Ethiopia (2009); and Japan (2010).
India maintains the position that discrimination based on caste falls outside the scope of the ICERD Article 1 India maintains the position that ICERD is not applicable to caste discrimination but only to discrimination based and the Convention is not applicable in this case. However, taking note of such argument and after having on race. However, the Committee has adopted and repeatedly expressed the view that the term descent in extensive exchange of views with the State party, the Committee still “maintains its position expressed in eneral recommendation No. 29” and “reaffirms that discrimination based on the ground of caste is fully covered by article 1 of the Convention.” A similar view was also expressed in the consideration of the State reports of Nepal (2000) and Bangladesh (2001).
Indirect discrimination and de facto discrimination
It should be noted that the Convention covers acts where the results might unintentionally lead to discrimination, as reflected in Article 1 (1) which refers to “the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise” of human rights. In its General Recommendation No. 14 (1993), CERD reaffirmed its view on this matter as follows:
“A distinction is contrary to the Convention if it has either the purpose or the effect of impairing particular rights and freedoms This is confirmed by the obligation placed upon States parties by article 2, paragraph 1 (c), to nullify any law or practice which has the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination” (para. 1) and “the Committee will acknowledge that particular actions may have varied purposes. In seeking to determine whether an action has an effect contrary to the Convention, it will look to see whether that action has an unjustifiable disparate impact upon a group distinguished by race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin” (para. 2).
In the concluding observations on the Philippines, the Committee further noted that “even well-intentioned or neutral policies may directly or indirectly have negative or undesired effects on race relations and lead to de facto discrimination.”
A system with a discriminatory effect - de facto discrimination
In the concluding observations on China in 2009, the Committee expressed its concern that the national household registration system (hukou) could indirectly have a discriminatory effect i.e. create de facto discrimination against internal migrants in the fields of employment, social security, health services and education. It further stated that this system also affects members of ethnic minorities, and in particular women. Against this backdrop, the Committee recommended that “the State party implement its decision to reform the hukou system and ensure that internal migrants, in particular members of ethnic minorities, will be able to enjoy the same work, social security, health and education benefits as long-time urban residents.”
Special Measures - Affirmative Action
In order to achieve not only formal equality before the law but also substantive equality in practice (e.g. in the enjoyment and exercise of human rights), Article 1 (4) of the Convention allows for special measures (also named as affirmative action, affirmative measures or positive action) for the benefit of racially or ethnically disadvantaged groups or individuals. These measures are considered legitimate on the condition that:
“such measures do not lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different groups and that they shall cease after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved” (ICERD Article 1 (4)).
On the other hand, an action is judged contrary to the Convention, when it has an unjustifiable disparate impact upon a group distinguished by race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin (see also Article 2 (2) of ICERD). Inevitably, certain difficulties arise in the understanding of the concept of special measures. Against this backdrop, the Committee held a thematic discussion on 4 and 5 August 2008 and issued its General Recommendation No. 32 in 2009 to provide practical guidance, especially to States parties, on the meaning and scope of special measures under ICERD.
It is important that States parties distinguish special measures from “unjustifiable preferences” and should be noted that “to treat in an equal manner persons or groups whose situations are objectively different will constitute discrimination in effect, as will the unequal treatment of persons whose situations are objectively the same.” Based on such understanding, special measures should be temporary and designed as well as implemented to secure to disadvantaged groups the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. At the same time, targets of temporary special measures should not be confused with permanent rights of specific groups such as: the rights of persons belonging to minorities to profess and practice their own religion and use their own language; the rights of indigenous peoples; or rights of women to non-identical treatment with men on account of biological differences from men, e.g. maternity leave, while these groups are also entitled to benefit from special measures.
A wide range of measures are possible, including “the full span of legislative, executive, administrative, budgetary and regulatory instruments, at every level in the State apparatus, as well as plans, policies, programmes and preferential regimes in areas such as employment, housing, education, culture, and participation in public life for disfavoured groups, devised and implemented on the basis of such instruments.”
Special Measures: CERD’s concluding observation on Colombia (2009)
Despite national policies on special measures, CERD was concerned that: Afro-Colombians and indigenous peoples continue to face serious challenges to the enjoyment of their rights, de-facto discrimination and marginalisation; structural causes of discrimination and exclusion from the access to socio-economic rights and development; policies on special measures are not accompanied by adequate resource allocations, including at the departmental and municipal level; and implementation of special measures is not effectively monitored in the country. The Committee respectively gave recommendations to the State party to address these concerns. In addition, CERD underlined the importance of consultation with relevant communities in the elaboration of relevant development plans and affirmative action policies.
Paragraph 7 of CERD’s General Recommendation No. 32 (2009) reads,
“The ‘grounds’ of discrimination are extended in practice by the notion of ‘intersectionality’ whereby the Committee addresses situations of double or multiple discrimination - such as discrimination on grounds of gender or religion - when discrimination on such a ground appears to exist in combination with a ground or grounds listed in Article 1 of the Convention.”
CERD pays special attention to cases where such multiple forms of discrimination are involved. Regarding the intersectionality of gender, in its General Recommendation No. 25 (2000), the Committee noted that racial discrimination does not always affect women and men equally or in the same way, and certain forms of racial discrimination directly affect women such as sexual violation against women of particular racial or ethnic groups, or coerced sterilisation of indigenous women. At the same time, racial discrimination may have consequences where women are primarily or exclusively affected e.g. racial bias-motivated rape. Against this backdrop the Committee has been enhancing its efforts to integrate gender perspective into its work and also recommending that States parties provide disaggregated data with regard to the gender dimensions of racial discrimination as well as to take necessary actions in this regard.
Religion and racial discrimination does not fall in the scope of ICERD however possibility of double discrimination “Religion” is not included in the five grounds of discrimination set out in the Article 1 of ICERD. Accordingly, CERD observes that discrimination based solely on religious grounds does not fall in the scope of ICERD.
However, drawing a clear line between ethnic/national origin and religion is not always a simple task. In this regard, CERD has expressed its view that the Committee “would be competent to consider a claim of “double” discrimination on the basis of religion and another ground specifically provided for in Article 1 of the Convention, including national or ethnic origin”.At the same time, under ICERD 5(d), States parties have the obligation to ensure that all persons enjoy their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, without any discrimination based on race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin.
State obligation under ICERD (Article 2-7)
Measures to be taken to eliminate racial discrimination (Article 2)
Article 2 requires the State party to prohibit and stop racial discrimination by any persons, groups or organisations, without any distinction between public and private actors.
State obligations as set out under Article 2 (1) include:
· Not to engage in any act or practice of racial discrimination;
· To ensure that all public authorities and institutions do not engage in any act or practice of racial discrimination;
· Not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any person or organisation;
· To review policies and to amend or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination.
Article 2 (2) addresses special measures which should be taken by the State party in social, economic, cultural and other fields to ensure adequate development and protection of disadvantaged groups and to guarantee them full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Racial segregation and apartheid (Article 3)
Article 3 condemns racial segregation and apartheid. Initially this Article was often interpreted as directed exclusively at South Africa. However, the Committee makes it clear in General Recommendation No. 19 (1995) that Article 3 prohibits all forms of racial segregation in all countries, including unintended segregation in housing and/or education. States also have the obligation to eradicate the consequences of such practices undertaken or tolerated by previous Governments.
The Committee regularly expresses concerns and makes explicit rcommendations on the issue of racial segregation, especially in sectors such as housing and education. In most cases, CERD addresses this issue in relation to the situation of ethnic or national minorities, and in particular Roma and descent-based groups such as Dalits.
Prohibition of racial incitement (Article 4)
The Committee has repeatedly emphasized the paramount importance of Article 4, which puts a limit on the excessive exercise of freedom of expression “with due regard to the principle embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Furthermore CERD has issued three General Recommendations on this topic; No. 1 (1972), No. 7 (1985) and No. 15 (1993). Under Article 4, States parties must declare an offence punishable by law following acts:
· The dissemination of ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred;
· Incitement to racial discrimination;
· Acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin;
· Provisions of any assistance to racist activities, including their financing.
Additionally, organizations as well as their activities and propaganda, which promote and incite racial discrimination, must be declared illegal and be prohibited (Article 4 (b)). Belonging to such organizations as well as participating in such activities are also to be treated as a criminal offence. Article 4 (c) underlines the obligation of the States parties to prohibit any public authority or institution at all administrative levels from promoting or inciting racial discrimination.
Full compliance with Article 4 is a particularly complicated issue in many countries because the line of upholding the States obligations under this Article and respecting the freedom of expression and association is often blurred. States frequently use the argument of protecting the freedom of expression and association to justify noncompliance with Article 4. There are also countries with reservations to Article 4 (20 States parties as of 5 July 2011, cf. Annex I). In response the Committee has taken a robust position on the implementation of Article 4. In its General Recommendation No. 15 (1993), the Committee clarifies that “the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the right to freedom of opinion and expression” which is embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19) and recalled in the Article 5 (d) (viii) of ICERD. Referencing Article 29 (2) of the Universal Declaration, CERD further stresses that the citizen’s exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression carries special duties and responsibilities including the obligation not to disseminate racist ideas.
Equality in the enjoyment of rights (Article 5)
Article 5 provides a non-exhaustive list of rights and States parties have the obligation to guarantee that everyone - regardless of race, colour or national or ethnic origin - can enjoy these rights. The list includes:
· the right to equal treatment before the tribunals and all other organs administrating justice;
· the right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution;
· a whole series of political and civil rights;
· a whole series of economic, social and cultural rights;
· the right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public, including those privately owned, such as transport, hotels, restaurants, cafes, theatres and parks.
According to CERD’s General Recommendation No. 20 (1996), Article 5 assumes the existence and recognition of human rights and requires States to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination in the enjoyment of these rights. However, the Article itself does not create nor define civil, political, economic, social or cultural rights, thus there is space allowing the manner in which the acknowledgement and protection of these rights are translated into actual legal order and practice differ from State to State. At the same time, it is important to note that this Article and its interpretation are also open for further developments and elaboration of human rights.
In interpreting Article 5, CERD makes a distinction between rights to be enjoyed by all persons living in a given State and rights of its citizens. While many of the rights and freedoms mentioned in Article 5 fall under the former, the right to participate in elections, to vote and to stand for elections are covered by the latter. In any case “human rights are in principle to be enjoyed by all persons” and States parties have the “obligation to guarantee equality between citizens and non-citizens in the enjoyment of these rights to the extent recognised in international law.”
CERD also notes that the rights and freedoms referred to in Article 5 and any similar rights are to be protected by a State party, while such protection can be achieved in different ways including activities of private institutions.
Remedies for racial discrimination (Article 6)
Under Article 6, States are obliged to assure everyone within their jurisdiction has:
· effective protection and remedies against any acts of racial discrimination; and
· the right to seek just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination.
However, quite often the degree of damage that acts of racial discrimination cause to a person is underestimated and claims for remedies are not taken seriously. In this regard, CERD stresses in General Recommendation No. 26 (2000) that the rights embodied in Article 6 are not necessarily secured solely by the punishment of the perpetrator and that the courts and other competent authorities should consider awarding financial compensation for material or moral damage suffered by a victim.
Article 7 requires States to adopt immediate and effective measures, particularly in the fields of teaching, education and culture:
· to combat prejudice which lead to racial discrimination; and
· to promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among nations and racial or ethnic groups;
Concerning States parties not paying sufficient attention to the implementation of Article 7, the Committee requests every State to submit adequate information on concrete measures taken and their effect.
Full implementation of ICERD, and any other international instruments heavily depend on national law enforcement officials and whether they are properly informed about the obligations their State has entered into. Education as referred to in the Article 7 is not limited to school education but also includes training of law enforcement officials and other professionals such as teachers. CERD’s General Recommendation No. 13 (1993) stresses the following:
“In the implementation of Article 7 of the Convention, the Committee calls upon States parties to review and improve the training of law enforcement officials so that the standards of the Convention as well as the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (1979) are fully implemented.”
In its General Recommendation No. 17 (1993), the Committee also recommends that States parties set up national institutions to serve the following purposes, including but not limited to:
· promoting respect for human rights and the exercise thereof, free from any discrimination, as expressly stated in Article 5 of ICERD;
· examining official policies towards the protection against racial discrimination;
· monitoring laws so that they comply with the provisions of ICERD;
· educating the public as to the obligations which the States parties assume under ICERD.
Furthermore, CERD pays close attention to the question of whether States inform the public about human rights in general, in particular ICERD and CERD, and whether ICERD has been translated into and published in the local languages.
Such treaties were signed between the victorious Allies and Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, Greece, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Turkey, and were guaranteed only in so far as they affected members of such minorities.
# UN document. A/C 3/ S.R 100, 7, cited in Warwick Mckean, Equality and Discrimination under International Law, 1983, p. 59
# id Article 13 (1).
# See ICESCR Article 2 (3), 3.
# See The Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 18.
# CERD General Recommendation No. 24, para. 1
# CERD General Recommendation No. 8
# CERD annual report 2009, A/64/18, para. 42, the Philippines (13)
# Ibid., para. 1
# CERD Annual Report (2002), UN doc. A/57/18, paras. 406, 445
# CERD Annual Report (2003), UN doc. A/58/18, paras. 124, 492, 544
# CERD Annual Report (2004), UN doc. A/59/18, paras. 127, 131, 320, 342
# CERD Annual Report (2005), UN doc. A/60/18, para. 290
# CERD Annual Report (2006), UN doc. A/61/18, paras. 442, 445, 449; and CERD Concluding Observations on Yemen (2011),
# CERD Annual Report (2007), UN doc. A/62/18, paras. 166, 167
# CERD Concluding Observations on Ethiopia (2009), UN doc. CERD/C/ETH/CO/7-16, para. 15
# CERD Concluding Observations on Japan (2010), UN doc. CERD/C/JPN/CO/3-6
# UN doc. A/51/18, para. 352; CERD Annual Report (2007), UN doc. A/62/18, para. 166
# CERD annual report 2009, A/64/18, para. 42, the Philippines (13
# Ref. CERD General Recommendation No. 14
# CERD General Recommendation No. 32, para. 7
# Ibid., para. 8
# Ibid., para. 15
# Ibid., para. 13
# CERD Concluding Observations on Colombia (2009), CERD/C/COL/CO/14, para. 18
# Ref. e.g. CERD General Recommendations No. 25, paras. 3, 4, 5, 6; No. 29, paras. 11, 12, 13; No. 30, para. 8; No. 32, para.
# CERD Concluding Observations on Colombia (2009), CERD/C/COL/CO/14, para. 18
# Ref. e.g. CERD General Recommendations No. 25, paras. 3, 4, 5, 6; No. 29, paras. 11, 12, 13; No. 30, para. 8; No. 32, para. 7
# See also CERD concluding observations on the USA (2001) para. 5 and (2008) para. 11
# For example, in the consideration of States reports in 2009: Azerbaijan (Concluding Observations para. 15), Croatia (Concluding Observations para. 14), Ethiopia (Concluding Observations para. 15), Finland (Concluding Observations para. 17), Pakistan (Concluding Observations para. 12) and Turkey (Concluding Observations para. 13). In 2008: Belgium, Fiji, Italy, Namibia, Russia, USA (CERD Annual Report 2008, A/63/18, paras. 81, 174, 236, 294, 377, 487 and 488). In 2007: Antigua and Barbuda, Czech
Republic, India, Israel and DR Congo (CERD Annual Report 2007, A/62/18, paras. 45, 110, 111, 171, 183, 215 and 330.
# CERD General Recommendation No. 15, para. 4
# CERD annual report 2005, A/60/18, paras. 442-446 and Annex III, section A
# CERD General Recommendation No. 30, para. 3
# CERD General Recommendation No. 20, para. 5
# CERD General Recommendation No. 26, para. 2
# CERD General Recommendation No. 5
# CERD General Recommendation No. 13 para. 3
# Recommendations adopted at the 6th meeting of the Persons Chairing the Human Rights Treaty Bodies, in September 1995, UN doc. A/50/505, para. 20