|
COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Sixty-first session SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 1535th MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, On Tuesday, 13 August 2002
at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. DIACONU
CONTENTS
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS, COMMENTS AND INFORMATION
SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION (continued)
Eleventh to fourteenth periodic reports of Yemen
(continued)
ORGANIZATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS (continued)
The meeting was called to order at 10.20 a.m.
This record is subject to correction.
Corrections should be submitted in one of the
working languages. They should be set forth in a memorandum and
also incorporated in a copy of the record. They should be sent within
one week of the date of this document to the Official Records Editing
Section, room E.4108, Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Any corrections to the records of the public meetings
of the Committee at this session will be consolidated in a single
corrigendum, to be issued shortly after the end of the session.
GE.02-43976 (E) 140802 190802
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS, COMMENTS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY
STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION (agenda item 4)
(continued)
Eleventh to fourteenth periodic
reports of Yemen (CERD/C/362/Add.8; HRI/CORE/1/Add.115) (continued)
1. At the invitation of the Chairman, the members
of the delegation of Yemen resumed their places at the Committee
table.
2. Mr. AL-DURAIBI (Yemen), replying to questions
asked by the Committee, said that Yemen was a homogeneous society
in terms of religion, language, customs and practices. Discrimination
did not and could not exist because the population was essentially
monoethnic and wholly Muslim. In any event, Islam was a tolerant
religion. It also forbade proselytism, which meant that people in
Yemen were free to choose their religion, but at the same time a
Muslim could not renounce his faith. Yemen was basically a tribal
and pastoral society, yet town dwellers enjoyed exactly the same
rights as the rural population. Tribal conflicts were usually settled
by tribal custom.
3. The Yemeni Government was currently looking at the possibility
of making incitement to racial discrimination a criminal offence;
it was also reviewing the reservations which Yemen had made to various
articles of the Convention. Foreigners were not entitled to participate
in elections or to serve in the military, but their personal freedom
and security and their access to the courts was guaranteed. The
Jewish community, numbering just 5000 people, was the sole religious
minority in Yemen. The various conditions for acquiring Yemeni citizenship,
for example upon marriage, were governed by the Nationality Act.
The rules for inheritance by men and women were laid down by the
Islamic Shariah. Incidentally, it should come as no surprise that
in a country where 99 per cent of the population was Muslim, the
Constitution should enshrine Islam as the State religion.
4. The Akhdam, a group of people who had originally
come to Yemen from Africa in pre Christian times, were not an ethnic
minority because they were fully integrated into Yemeni society,
enjoying exactly the same rights as everybody else. The colour of
their skin was not an issue. Nevertheless, the Government had put
in place a range of measures to further improve their social and
economic well-being, especially with regard to housing, education,
sports, recreation and literacy drives.
5. Recent conflict in the Horn of Africa had brought
large numbers of refugees to Yemen’s shores. There were currently
some 57,000 Somali refugees, 2,500 Eritreans and 1,200 Ethiopians.
Despite the heavy strain on the economy and the infrastructure of
the country, the Government had provided for them in collaboration
with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Among programmes to assist special-needs and disadvantaged categories
were the Public Works Project, the Social Fund for Development,
a special unit to develop small enterprises, and a programme for
productive families. Those initiatives had already achieved tangible
results, especially in the field of job creation, and a significant
proportion of programme beneficiaries were women.
6. No cases of racial discrimination against foreign workers had
ever been brought before the Yemeni courts. It was inconceivable
that illiterate persons could be elected to public bodies, but all
Yemeni citizens had the right to vote, regardless of whether they
could read or write. As to the Committee’s suggestion that the Government
might consider establishing a human rights commission, there already
existed a special unit to monitor respect for human rights. Among
the various measures taken to disseminate the provisions of the
Convention, the Committee should be aware that every year Yemen
celebrated human rights day on 10 December. In addition an official
human rights bulletin was published every month with a view to raising
awareness of all human rights.
7. Ms. FAFEE (Yemen) said that the Committee should
be aware that Yemen had undergone a period of painful economic transition
connected with the reunification of two separate States. The fact
that Yemen had opted for a democratic system of government and political
pluralism, and had settled its border disputes by peaceful means,
had introduced a certain measure of stability and created favourable
conditions for the promotion and protection of human rights. Men
and women participated equally in the political, economic and social
life of the country. The refugee issue was a considerable drain
on resources, yet the Government had not shirked its obligations.
Illegal immigrants were either detained in host camps pending a
decision on how to deal with them, or returned to their countries
of origin.
8. Most important of all, however, it should be
borne in mind that Islam was a religion of peace and tolerance.
It drew no distinction between Arabs and non-Arabs, except in respect
of piety. The unfortunate and erroneous identification of Islam
with terrorism should not be allowed to obscure the fact that, in
many ways, Islam and human rights were overlapping value systems.
The fact that religion had been a source of law in Yemen for hundreds
of years surely bore witness to that claim. Islam, democracy and
human rights could coexist harmoniously.
9. Mr. ABOUL-NASR praised the delegation for the
precise and candid information it had provided in the course of
the discussion; he would attempt to be equally frank. He disputed
the claim that racial discrimination did not occur in Yemen, as
he firmly believed that problems relating to racial discrimination
arose in all countries of the world. The Committee had many a time
refused to accept such categorical statements. Even if there were
currently no evidence of racial discrimination, there was always
a risk that problems could arise in the future.
10. He questioned the delegation’s comment that
there was only one ethnic group in Yemen: the Akhdam were people
of African descent who clearly had a different status from other
Yemeni nationals and did not enjoy the same freedoms. Furthermore,
he understood that there were several different tribes in Yemen
which each had their own dialect and different ethnic characteristics.
The Government should take steps to preserve the rights of different
ethnic groups.
11. It was disappointing that the State party had
focused in its report (CERD/C/362/Add.8) on topics that were unrelated
to the Convention. Reference to issues such as gender inequality
should only be made in relation to racial discrimination, to prevent
attention from being distracted from the main issue. He disagreed
with the State party’s strict interpretations of the Koran, outlined
in the report. Such a discussion was inappropriate in the context
of the Convention. He expressed concern that people who did not
embrace Islam might face some form of discrimination on grounds
of their religion. However, in spite of his criticisms, he welcomed
the report and the spirit in which it had been introduced. He was
particularly pleased that one member of the delegation was a woman,
given the difficulties women faced in Yemen in the field of education.
12. Mr. THIAM welcomed the delegation’s frank dialogue with the
Committee. He had been interested to learn that conflicts could
be solved either by customary law or by the State authorities. However,
as the Shariah was the source of all legislation in Yemen, he would
be interested to know what place was given to customary law in the
legal system and, in particular, what role the institutions of customary
law played in settling conflicts between the various tribes. The
State party should indicate whether conflicts arose among tribes
living in different geographical areas and practising different
economic activities as a consequence of the distinction between
or exclusion of certain tribes. He agreed with the previous speaker
that it was difficult to believe that racial discrimination did
not occur in Yemen.
13. He would like to know whether a Yemeni citizen
had the right to invoke the Convention in court, and also to what
degree the provisions of the Convention were incorporated into the
legal system. Further details should be provided about the conditions
for acquiring Yemeni nationality. Persons born to a Yemeni mother
outside Yemen were not considered to be Yemeni nationals, which
constituted a form of exclusion on grounds of descent. It would
be interesting to learn how such individuals went about acquiring
nationality.
14. As a Muslim, he was proud to see that Yemen
fully enshrined the values of the Islamic faith; he hoped that Islam
would continue to form the basis of Yemeni law, in strict compliance
with universal standards. It was a blessing that there were no signs
in Yemen of the extremist tendencies that had led to the recent
acts of terrorism. He wished the Government continuing success in
its efforts to promote the Convention.
15. Mr. de GOUTTES said that, in the light of the
tragic events of 11 September 2001, the Committee had been paying
particular attention to the counter terrorism measures of reporting
States, to ensure that such measures were in compliance with the
State’s human rights obligations. He would be interested to learn
whether any counter terrorism measures had been put in place in
Yemen in response to the events of 11 September 2001. He would also
like to know the Government’s position regarding the optional declaration
provided for in article 14 of the Convention, concerning the consideration
of individual complaints.
16. Mr. SHAHI said that the report and discussion
clearly reflected the inherent compatibility and harmony between
Islamic civilization and the world culture of human rights, in other
words a dialogue of civilization
17. Referring to the assertion that racial discrimination
did not occur in Yemen, he noted that no demographic data had been
provided to indicate the origins of different segments of the population.
The Committee had consistently taken the view that, even where there
was apparently no racial discrimination, there was still a need
for legislation to be enacted in conformity with articles 2, 3 and
4 of the Convention, because such discrimination could arise in
the future. However, it was fair to state that no evidence had emerged
from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other human rights
institutions to suggest that racial discrimination did exist in
Yemen; the State party should be entitled to the benefit of the
doubt. Therefore, the Committee could only recommend that precautions
should be taken to ensure that such discrimination did not arise
in the future.
18. Ms. FAFEE (Yemen) said she welcomed the interest
shown in the human rights situation in Yemen. The Committee’s comments
would assist the Government in its work in that field. The Government
currently counted on the support of the approximately 2,900 NGOs
that were active in the country.
19. The tribes in Yemen did not form different
ethnic groups; on the contrary, they shared a common point of origin
and did not have diverging interests. For centuries, the tribespeople
of Yemen, who were largely involved in pastoral activities, had
lived in harmony; the only areas of conflict had perhaps been the
coastal fishing areas. Even in the cities, people from different
tribes worked together in conducting their economic activities,
a fact that boded well for the future. The tribespeople were extremely
proud of their social fabric, which was based on values such as
family unity, solidarity, the protection of the weak and providing
a safe environment for their children. None of their values were
considered to be damaging to Yemeni society as a whole. It was worth
noting that women played a very important role in tribal society.
20. Disputes among Yemeni tribes did not systematically
give rise to armed conflicts; internal conflicts were generally
solved peacefully within the tribe itself, without recourse to the
courts, because it was felt that such recourse might perpetuate
the problem. If that was not possible, the national police could
take action. The Yemeni tribes were unique in their nature, and
could not be compared to the tribes in Afghanistan, for example.
21. All elements of the Convention had been incorporated
into Yemeni domestic legislation. Under the Constitution, which
faithfully reflected the provisions of the Convention, no discrimination
was permitted on the basis of ethnic origin, skin colour, gender
or religion. Nor was any distinction made between citizens born
in Yemen and naturalized citizens of that country. If certain other
conditions were fulfilled, any person could acquire citizenship
by naturalization after residing for five years in the country;
marriage to a Yemeni citizen also facilitated the naturalization
process. Until recently, the law had provided that children of mixed
foreign and Yemeni marriages took the nationality of their fathers;
it now established that such a child had the right to dual nationality,
could choose Yemeni nationality on reaching the age of majority,
and had the same rights as a Yemeni child while still a minor. Civil
society had worked energetically to combat discrimination against
women, and had brought about many important legal and social changes
as a result.
22. As an academic frequenting academic circles in Yemen, she had
seen no signs of racial discrimination or racial discord. People
- individuals, not ethnic groups - from Africa and elsewhere had
long since migrated into Yemen and they had mingled with Yemeni
society and married into it. They were citizens like any other,
and were treated with friendly respect. Throughout its history,
Yemen had given a warm welcome to the monotheistic religions of
Judaism and Christianity, in addition to Islam, and had placed no
restrictions on them. A nation of openness and tolerance, Yemen
hoped to prevent any conceivable form of racial discrimination before
it occurred. She concurred, however, that no society was exempt
from problems.
23. Yemen had a strong will to improve and to change; and was dedicated
to the development process. Its current challenge was to provide
education and health-care services to all its citizens. Finally,
she said that the report had provided such a wealth of information
because the Government was striving to achieve transparency. It
had every intention of incorporating faithfully and fully every
aspect of the Convention into its domestic laws.
24. Mr. RESHETOV (Country Rapporteur) said that
the Committee was satisfied with the report and with the constructive
additional information provided by the delegation. The dialogue
had been characterized by frankness, self-criticism, and a spirit
of transparency, and had given the Committee a much greater understanding
of the situation in Yemen. It should be clear that discussions with
States parties such as Yemen should be seen as a dialogue of civilization;
a State party was not expected to renounce its way of life. The
delegation had indicated that Islam in principle forbade discrimination
on any basis, and also that racial discrimination did not exist
in Yemen. The Committee, however, abided by the conviction that
cases of racial discrimination could and did occur in all countries.
It was uncertain whether racial discrimination, in the conventional
sense, existed in Yemen. And yet there were conflicts, sometimes
violent ones, between tribes, and tribes were groups with different
origins. The explanations given on the situation of the Akhdam had
reassured him. Neither the Committee nor the State party should
be too categorical in their positions: in his view, they were moving
closer together. He had been gratified to learn that consideration
was being given to the criminalization of acts proscribed by article
4 of the Convention.
25. If he understood correctly, Yemen’s reservations
to the Convention had been entered by the former Yemen Arab Republic,
and that the matter was as yet unresolved. Since Yemen had implemented
aspects of the articles in question, he wondered whether it would
consider lifting the reservation thereto.
26. Since the delegation had indicated that Islam
constituted the foundation of the social, economic and political
life of the country, he wondered what was the situation of persons
and families who were not Muslims. The question had been asked how
property belonging to a married couple of mixed origin was disposed
of after a divorce: no answer had been given.
27. He wondered whether the question raised with
respect to counter-terrorism measures in Yemen gave the impression
that the Committee was asking Yemen whether or not it was harbouring
terrorists. In general, the Committee asked that question of all
countries: there was no specific reason that it should be asked
of Yemen, and he, for one, had no expectation about the answer that
it might provoke. Finally, he said that he hoped that the next report
would be submitted in a timely manner.
28. Ms. FAFEE (Yemen) said that property laws that
applied to Muslims were not mandatory: a Muslim person could choose
to apply them or not. For non-Muslims, the distribution of property
was determined by family law.
29. The Government of Yemen strongly condemned
terrorism. Such condemnation was consistent with the values of the
Yemeni people: it was not in their nature to resort to violence
to resolve conflicts. Yemen had suffered from acts of political
terrorism, and believed that it was a serious scourge that violated
the principles of democracy and law. The Government had taken a
number of measures to combat terrorism prior to the events of 11
September 2001. In April 2001, it had closed all religious schools,
and integrated those students into the civil schools, with a view
to preventing the development of two separate social groups within
the same generation, one holding intolerant fundamentalist views,
the other representing a more open and modern viewpoint.
30. The events of 11 September, 2001 had affected all the countries
of the world. At the time, many Yemenis had been living abroad,
and many, in fact, had been living in the United States of America.
The condemnation of Arabs and Muslims that had resulted from those
events had profoundly affected them. Interrogations and deportations
had occurred, and persons who clearly had had no role in those actions
had wrongly suffered. A number of Yemenis, particularly students,
had been obliged to return home. The Government believed that chaos
would ensue if any person that merely looked like an Arab was held
accountable for those horrific events. In the view of the Government,
the best means of combating terrorism was educating children in
the culture of peace and security, and providing them with jobs
and hope.
31. It was true that marginal communities existed
in all societies. The Yemenis who had returned home following the
Gulf war, after suffering the trauma of violent conflict, formed
one such community; the Government of Yemen had assumed the responsibility
for providing care and assistance to them. It also provided care
for the poor.
32. Finally, she said that her Government was grateful
for all the Committee’s questions and observations, and believed
that, with its help, it could lay the foundations for a lasting
democracy.
33. The CHAIRMAN, thanking the delegation, said
that the dialogue had been instructive and fruitful.
34. The delegation of Yemen withdrew.
The meeting was suspended at 12.05 p.m. and resumed
at 12.25 p.m.
ORGANIZATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS (agenda item 2)
(continued) (CERD/C/61/Misc.4)
35. The CHAIRMAN drew Committee members’ attention
to the following sections contained in an informal document on organizational
matters (CERD/C/61/Misc.4): Reports of State parties, Presence of
the delegation of the State party, Introductory presentation by
the State party’s representative, Action of country rapporteurs,
Interventions by members of the Committee , Reply of the State party’s
representative and The Committee’s concluding observations, and
invited them to suggest any changes they might deem necessary.
36. Mr. VALENCIA RODRIGUEZ, referring to the first
section entitled “Reports of States parties”, said that the main
subject of concern was the length of States parties’ reports. He
recalled that, at the meeting of chairpersons of the human rights
treaty bodies and at the inter committee meeting, the committees
had been invited to coordinate among themselves the dates on which
States parties would be required to submit their reports to avoid
a situation where a country had to submit several reports within
a short space of time.
37. Mr. SICILIANOS said that, although the proposal
to limit the length of reports had been prompted by financial constraints,
the rule should not be too strictly applied and there should be
some flexibility. In his experience, when reports were of the length
suggested, they often tended to describe recent legislation rather
than practical measures and the Committee then had to request additional
information from the delegations. The feasibility of imposing strict
limitations on length also had to be considered in the light of
the extensive requirements of the Convention, as well as the submission
by States parties of combined reports, which sometimes covered a
period of 10 years or more. Moreover, in order to formulate concluding
observations that were of real practical value, the Committee had
to have the relevant factual information at its disposal.
38. Mr. PILLAI observed that the nature and extent of the issues
contained in a report, as evidenced by the amount of time allocated
for its consideration, gave some indication of the difficulty involved
in imposing a strict limitation on length. He agreed that the combined
reports would represent a particular difficulty and that reports
tended to be too descriptive. Governments should therefore be encouraged
to concentrate on quality rather than quantity.
39. Mr. HERNDL said that he would be reluctant
to curtail the length of the reports of States parties that wanted
to be more explicit. There could be no harm in establishing a general
rule on length provided it was not rigidly applied. As things stood,
annexes were frequently not reproduced, which was a pity as they
often provided valuable information on national legislation. It
was worth noting that a previous attempt by the Organization to
impose limitations on documents had had political repercussions.
It was also important to differentiate between the initial report,
which might reasonably be longer, and periodic and updating reports.
He agreed that it would be desirable to increase coordination among
the treaty bodies over submission of the reports of States parties
and suggested that wording to that effect should be included in
the final version of the document. However, caution should be exercised
with regard to the first paragraph; a milder formulation was needed
as the use of “adequately” could be taken to imply that reports
which exceeded the recommended length would not be given adequate
consideration. On the other hand, the impact of the second paragraph
should be strengthened by the insertion of “must” or “ought to”
between “reports” and “be”.
40. Mr. AMIR said that, given the amount of detailed
information that States parties were expected to provide regarding
the measures they were taking to implement the various articles
of the Convention, it was unrealistic to insist that in every case
reports should be no longer than 20 or 32 pages.
41. Mr. ABOUL-NASR put forward the following recommendations:
States parties should be requested to make their reports as brief
as possible; they should abide by the Convention and not report
on issues that were outside the Committee’s competence, and the
Committee should limit the number of its questions.
42. The CHAIRMAN said on the last point that there
should not be any written recommendations addressed to the Committee.
43. Mr. BOSSUYT said that it would be useful to
include some indication of the preferred number of pages, such as
32 pages, so long as it was formulated as a suggestion, in order
to avoid being confronted by long reports cataloguing national legislation.
44. Mr. de GOUTTES said that it would be helpful
to know whether the other treaty bodies required States parties
to limit the length of their reports and, if so, to how many pages.
Rather than arbitrarily fixing the number of pages, and, subject
to current practice of the other treaty bodies, the Committee might
call upon Governments to concentrate in their reports on developments
in the areas covered by the Convention and not to go into details
about subjects covered by other human rights treaties.
45. Mr. THIAM said that ensuring that reports were
drafted in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the Committee,
as was stated in the second paragraph, was, in practice, more important
than restricting their length. He therefore proposed reversing the
order of the first and second paragraphs.
46. Mr. VALENCIA RODRIGUEZ said that, having listened to the comments
of Committee members, he would suggest that in the current second
paragraph, “recommended” should be replaced with “requested” and
that “should” be inserted between “reports” and “be”. In the current
first paragraph “with the exception of combined reports” could be
inserted after “adequately” and “in principle” between “that” and
“initial”.
47. The CHAIRMAN said that those suggestions did
not reflect all members’ comments. He recalled Mr. Herndl’s concern
about the opening phrase in the first paragraph. The sentence should
begin: “The Committee suggests …”. Furthermore, the proposal to
the effect that States parties should be asked to confine their
reports to areas covered by the Convention was entirely appropriate.
The insertion of “with the exception of combined reports” was not
appropriate as they accounted for the majority of the reports submitted,
and no recommendation would be credible unless they were included.
Further work was needed on devising a version that reflected members’
comments in a synoptic form.
48. Ms. PROUVEZ (Secretary of the Committee) said,
by way of a preliminary reply to Mr. de Gouttes’ question about
the length of reports to other treaty bodies, that the Committee
on the Rights of the Child had decided to limit the length of its
States parties’ reports to 120 pages bearing in mind that reports
could run to 300 pages. The Human Rights Committee had discussed
the issue at its session in July 2002, but had not reached a decision,
although the general tendency had been to agree that some limitation
on length should be imposed. Furthermore, if the treaty bodies did
not take measures to reduce the number of pages in the reports,
the General Assembly might come to a decision of its own, which
would then be imposed upon them.
49. The CHAIRMAN informed the Committee that he
had received a letter from the Ambassador of Turkey regarding the
Committee’s discussion of the report of Armenia and Armenia’s references
to genocide. There was no criticism of the Committee, but copies
would be made available to the Committee as had been requested,
for information, together with copies of an earlier letter dated
2 July 2002. An annex was attached which contained a statement by
a number of American academics.
50. He had also received a letter from the Ambassador
of Fiji, which, regrettably, clearly demonstrated that he had not
understood either the working methods of the Committee or its relationship
with the press. The Ambassador referred to a statement made to the
press by a representative of an NGO from Fiji for which he held
the Committee responsible. He proposed sending a letter advising
him that representatives of NGOs did not represent the views of
the Committee or any of its members and that, furthermore, the Committee
was expecting to receive a completed version of his country’s report
in March 2003 for consideration, when his presence was also expected.
51. Mr. ABOUL-NASR said that, since the letter
contained an accusation against a member of the Committee, any reply
should be strongly worded and make it clear to the Ambassador that
he should check his facts before calling the credibility of the
Committee into question.
52. Ms. JANUARY-BARDILL agreed with Mr. Aboul-Nasr.
It was also a matter of concern that the NGO representative had
misrepresented to the press what had taken place in the meeting.
She would like to hear the views of Committee members on how such
an issue should be dealt with since it called into question the
nature of the Committee’s relationship with NGOs.
53. The CHAIRMAN, responding to a point of order
raised by Mr. BOSSUYT, said that the discussion would be postponed
until the Committee’s afternoon session.
|
