Consideration of reports, comments and information submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention (continued)
Twelfth periodic report of the Holy See (continued)
Submission of reports by States parties under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS, COMMENTS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION (agenda item 4) (continued)
Twelfth periodic report of the Holy See (CERD/C/226/Add.6) (continued)
1. At the invitation of the Chairman, Mgr. Tabet, Mgr. Pierre and Mr. Buonomo (Holy See) took places at the Committee table.
2. The CHAIRMAN noted the influence of the decisions of the Holy See on a large number of countries. In his view the Catholic Church played a leading role in implementing article 7 of the Convention, i.e. in combating racial discrimination through education and dissemination of the principles of the Charter and the Convention. The many questions raised and comments made at the previous meeting on the twelfth periodic report of the Holy See (CERD/C/226/Add.6) were an indication of the Committee's interest in that report and in the work of the Catholic Church.
3. Mgr. PIERRE (Holy See) said that due note had been taken of the Committee's observations, in particular the importance of a study on the nature of racism, which was a crime or a sickness that often resulted in crime. As the members of the Committee had pointed out, the Holy See had a special place in the community of nations; its mission was not the same as that of the Government of a State. That special role of the Holy See, like the attitude and activities of the Catholic Church, provided the beginnings of a reply to many of the questions that had been raised. The Church was indeed involved in a great number, not to say all, human situations, which was why much was expected of it. Such expectations were a good sign. They were legitimate: they showed that the Church was not marginal but involved in the problems of modern men and women. However, the Catholic Church should not give the illusion that it was going to solve all problems. It could not impose solutions; its role and methods were those of a guide, for human beings were free.
4. It should further be remembered that a Christian was also a full-fledged citizen, and that there were Christians in all camps, sectors and fields. It was therefore not surprising that conflicts arose on the interpretation of the path to take and the solutions to adopt. The Holy See was fully aware that it was an enormous task to change mentalities. When the Pope spoke, it was to enhance awareness. But clergymen were not the generals of an army to which they could give orders; it should not be forgotten that their task was one of persuasion.
5. Many experts had raised the question of education and asked for additional information on the subject. Statistics were indeed lacking, but it would be difficult to provide them in the near future, for the Church was omnipresent and had many educational establishments. Similarly, he could not give an immediate reply to the questions raised on educational programmes, but he could say that the teaching in all institutions connected with the Catholic Church was based on the principles set forth in the report of the Holy See and the oral introduction of that report. Teaching aimed at presenting the essence of Church beliefs, i.e. the teaching of the Gospel as it related to modern problems. Non-discrimination based on race, which emerged from Church teachings, therefore had its place in the programmes of Catholic educational establishments. Teaching methods also had their importance, for they could encourage understanding between the races in the schools themselves. In a country that officially proclaimed apartheid, for example, it would be desirable for Catholic institutions not only to teach racial understanding but to promote co-existence between the races.
6. The Catholic Church did not conduct its educational work through the school alone. Its teaching also took place through local bodies: the parishes, the local communities, and especially the family, which was the primary unit for transmitting Christian values. In Latin America, for example, basic education took place through the local communities.
7. Some experts had noted that the main emphasis had been placed on teaching and very little on action. He pointed out that teaching was the best kind of action and that the report had given several indications of the vast Church network. An illustration of that was the fact that every German parish had a service for receiving refugees. Christians were called on to take action as Christians in their everyday lives, and perhaps to take decisions on what might be a current trend in society. There were very many aid and assistance groups or organizations in existence. Caritas, for example, was a well-known and extremely active organization, but it was only one among hundreds. Every parish had a study or contact group for conducting dialogues with groups of different religious persuasion. Dialogue was one of the Church's favourite modes of action, for it took place right where people lived and dealt with each other. It took place at all levels of society, from the parish through the episcopal conferences.
8. Several experts had emphasized the religious dimension that many conflicts had developed. That was indeed a very serious problem, about which the Pope had often expressed concern. Those conflicts had resulted in a tremendous effort at reflection and analysis. The Catholic hierarchy had mobilized and taken very clear-cut positions. It had done so, for example, concerning the events in the former Yugoslavia, over which the Pope had taken a position in favour of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a mostly Muslim republic. The principles expressed at that time, principles that had been proclaimed during the conflict between Serbia and Croatia, and that remained true, were the following: rejection of ethnic cleansing, rejection of the use of force to impose territorial control, recognition of the right of refugees and persons in exile to return to their lands, and finally respect for minorities, which should be guaranteed by international monitoring. The Holy See had stated that those principles drew their legal force from the Charter of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions and the international human rights instruments - including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It had cited those texts on several occasions, as well as the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris, instruments of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
9. The Holy See also endeavoured in all circumstances to foster dialogue between the Catholic Church and other Churches. It had in particular sought to strengthen its ties with the Orthodox Church, for everyone knew that that conflict had overtones of opposition between Catholics and Orthodox Church members. That effort at dialogue had been made at all levels - from the rank and file, the dioceses, through the patriarchate, at the Holy See - in order to eliminate prejudices, some being age-old and others having reappeared recently.
10. In reply to Mr. Wolfrum, who had asked whether the Holy See was planning a campaign in the countries of the former Yugoslavia, he replied that the Holy See had often acted at the political level to foster dialogue among communities which, for the time being, were drawing away from each other in the name of racial, ethnic, historical or religious considerations. The Holy See continued to maintain that there should be no territorial division along ethnic lines. Dialogue among religions was an integral part of Holy See policy, so much so that several Dicasteries were in charge of promoting dialogue with both the other Christian Churches and the representatives of other religions. There was also a pontifical commission in charge of relations with the Jews and another in charge of relations with the Muslims. The Holy See also attached special importance to respect for minorities.
11. Mr. Song had referred to the position of a number of activist priests working with indigenous communities. The Catholic Church had made a fundamental choice to serve the poor, the term "poor" being understood in a broad sense that went beyond the financial concept. That choice, called the "preferential option", came from the Gospel, but had taken on a special meaning to the extent that it had become an important element in what had been called "liberation theology". He acknowledged that tensions had arisen in the Church in Latin America over the analysis of the social situation. A number of Holy See documents, such as "Christian Liberty" and "Liberation", published in 1986, provided guidelines in that connection. The Church and its members were invited to work with others to introduce a new social and political order more in keeping with the requirements of justice, but the source of that movement remained the Gospel, and any ideology that was contrary to its teachings was excluded. Of course the Gospel did not offer ready-made solutions, and Christians remained men and women in society, believers who at the same time were free to commit themselves and take the risks and assume the responsibilities that that involved. At times, especially when the problems assumed tragic proportions - and that had become the case with poverty, which was the source of a confrontation between rich and poor and between North and South - that commitment became a source of conflict. Nevertheless, the Church was sufficiently open to absorb those differences without allowing the communion, i.e. the fellowship of Christians around the values of the Gospel, to suffer.
12. Regarding the question raised by Mr. Diaconu, the Holy See had recently taken action to make a contribution to the dialogue between Catholics and members of the Orthodox Church, especially in the countries of eastern Europe. A document prepared in 1990 by the representatives of the Catholic Church and the Moscow Patriarchate had shown that the Catholic Church, far from wishing to compete with other religions, was working towards harmony among all communities in a pluralistic world. Referring to remarks by another member of the Committee, who had criticized the principle of an official religion to the exclusion of all others, he said that all religions should have the right to exist and that their members should be free to practise their faith, whether they were in the majority or in the minority.
13. Mr. WOLFRUM said that the educational activities of the Holy See or of national Catholic Churches should be described in greater detail. He welcomed the specific example Mgr. Pierre had given regarding Church assistance to refugees and wondered exactly what role the committees working in the German parishes played in helping refugees.
14. He also wondered to what extent the Holy See influenced or attempted to influence the Governments of States parties. Did the national Churches, which possessed a certain moral authority, at least with certain Governments, attempt to influence social, economic or educational policy in certain countries of Latin America, in particular Brazil, Chile or Peru? It would be helpful if the next report of the Holy See contained similar information on the situation of many States in Africa and Asia, in particular the Philippines.
15. Mr. de GOUTTES asked whether, in cases of mixed marriage, the Catholic partner was bound by the Church to raise the couple's children according to the Catholic faith.
16. Mr. GARVALOV, noting that Mgr. Pierre had indicated that the Catholic Church had established a dialogue with the Moscow Patriarchate, said he hoped that that was merely an example of the concern of the Catholic Church to make contacts with all the other patriarchates of the Orthodox Church, including the Patriarchate of Bulgaria.
17. Mrs. SADIQ ALI, referring once again to the issue of enrolment fees for Catholic schools, expressed concern at the elitism of Catholic education in India.
18. Mr. BANTON, noting that Mgr. Pierre had considered racism to be a sickness, said that the report of the Holy See referred to the sin of racism. Since it was unusual to regard a sickness as being sinful, he would like the representative of the Holy See to explain the extent to which an individual who committed an act of racial discrimination was responsible for the act.
19. Mgr. PIERRE (Holy See), replying to Mr. Banton, said that racism brought the responsibility of the perpetrator into play. In reply to Mr. Wolfrum's questions, he said that the Catholic Church had been active in Latin America for a long time, as the Committee members who came from that region could testify. As for the possible influence of the Holy See on the Governments of States parties, especially in Latin America, he noted that the Holy See was the organ of a Church that was present in all the States of that region. The episcopal conferences were very active and looked into all the problems of society, including racism, migrant labour, poverty, injustice and corruption. The bishops constantly interceded with Governments, parliaments and heads of State, not to exert power, but to serve society.
20. In reply to Mr. de Gouttes, he confirmed that, in mixed marriages, the Catholic partner was bound by the Church to raise his or her children in the Catholic religion. In reply to Mr. Garvalov, he said that meetings between the Catholic Church and the Moscow Patriarchate provided opportunities for studying questions of theology.
21. Replying to the question raised by Mrs. Sadiq Ali on equal access to Catholic education, he said that the Church did indeed work towards that goal. It also worked actively for education of the poor in India, even though there were schools which, because of their high enrolment fees, favoured an elite. The Church's role was to foster education for all, with priority to educating the poor and the most disadvantaged.
22. Also regarding Mrs. Sadiq Ali's question, Mgr. TABET (Holy See) said that he had been a student in Rome together with 35 Indian students from poor families. However, the Church could not use helping everybody as a pretext for excluding the rich out of love for the poor. Rich and poor alike should be educated to build a better world.
23. Mr. YUTZIS, referring to the question raised by Mr. Banton, said that the concepts of sickness and sin rarely had an influence on the individual responsibility of people of the Christian faith. Unfortunately, certain systems of social, economic or political organization fostered racist attitudes, while the Church, or rather religions, were traditionally used to legitimize the systems operating in the world. He noted in that connection that when the President of the United States had come to power, he had used the services of the preacher Billy Graham, whose prayers had certainly represented the President's desire, conscious or unconscious, to legitimize his assumption of political power. On the other hand, it was regrettable that the gap between rich and poor was steadily increasing and creating conditions that fostered a form of racism due to the "growth of absolute poverty".
24. Mr. DIACONU noted that the question raised by Mr. Garvalov also applied to the other Orthodox Churches and that a full dialogue with the autocephalous Orthodox Churches assumed a corresponding dialogue with the Patriarchates of Sofia, Bucharest, Belgrade, etc.
25. Concerning the issue of mixed marriages, he understood that a religious commitment was involved and wondered what would be the penalty applicable to the Catholic member of the marriage if he or she subsequently changed religions, since in his view a Catholic man who married a Catholic woman or vice versa was free to change religions, just as a child born of Catholic parents was free to be an atheist. A religious commitment should not undermine the freedom of a person who respected the civil laws. The dialogue with the representatives of the Holy See had generally been of high quality and was a source of inspiration for the Committee's future work.
26. Mgr. PIERRE (Holy See), replying to Mr. Diaconu, said that the Holy See maintained a dialogue with each of the autocephalous Churches and endeavoured to resolve the special problems that arose with each Church. He agreed with Mr. Yutzis concerning the existence of individual responsibility and of phenomena fostering racism. Certain social conditions fostered racist attitudes; in that connection, it was important for the Holy See or a local Church to intervene, not only to try and induce people to change their attitude, but also to bring about a change in the system and avoid a situation where the Church served to legitimize injustices. The Church should always be present to remind individuals and society of a number of values.
27. The CHAIRMAN thanked the delegation of the Holy See for coming to continue their dialogue with the members of the Committee.
28. The delegation of the Holy See withdrew.
29. The CHAIRMAN asked Mr. Wolfrum, Rapporteur for the Holy See, to prepare conclusions on the consideration of the twelfth periodic report of the Holy See (CERD/C/226/Add.6). He also wished to inform the members of the Committee that among the reports before them were those of Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and he asked the country rapporteurs to be so kind as to provide the delegations with the questions in advance so that their replies might be clearer.
30. Mr. de GOUTTES noted that, in connection with Bosnia and Herzegovina, he had a copy of the draft declaration of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities which appeared to have been adopted by consensus; he believed that text, which was drafted in particularly strong terms, might be useful to the members of the Committee.
SUBMISSION OF REPORTS BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE CONVENTION (agenda item 3) (CERD/C/43/Misc.1, CERD/C/245)
31. Mr. BANTON introduced draft general recommendations on the submission of reports by States parties, contained in a document circulated without a symbol. The language of the first part of the first paragraph of the document was based on the general comments of the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the second part established a link with the decision taken in March by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and explained why it would be useful to have general recommendations drafted in narrative form. The second paragraph also reproduced wording from the texts of the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The third paragraph explained the sequence of presentation of the recommendations, and the fourth made an important distinction between the recommendations already adopted by the Committee and those that were at the preliminary consideration stage. Pages 2 and 3 of the English version contained recommendations that had already been adopted, while pages 4 and 5 set out in narrative form a draft recommendation that had been proposed by the members of the Committee in March on States parties' policies for eliminating all forms of racial discrimination. Page 6 contained recommendations that had already been adopted. On page 7, paragraphs 1 and 2 contained recommendations already adopted on national human rights commissions, while paragraph 3 contained a new suggestion. Page 8 contained a general recommendation that had been proposed in March concerning segregation (art. 3), and paragraph 4 reproduced the Committee's general recommendation III and decision 2 (XI).
32. On page 8 of the English text, the first three paragraphs contained a new version of the draft general recommendation considered in March in the framework of article 3 of the Convention, while the fourth paragraph referred to a decision taken by the Committee concerning segregation. Pages 9 and 10 of the English text contained general recommendations on article 4 that had already been adopted by the Committee. Page 11 contained a draft recommendation on article 5. The first three paragraphs referred to the Committee's discussions on the scope of article 5 at its twenty-eighth session. The wording was taken from the Committee's report to the General Assembly, and the square brackets were due to the new presentation. Paragraph 4 referred to a general recommendation that had been proposed in March on rights relating to public life. Page 12 contained a draft recommendation on article 6 and dealt with the significance of the adjective "effective"; the draft was limited to article 6, unlike the March proposal which had dealt with both article 6 and article 7. Page 13 contained a general recommendation on article 7, namely general recommendation V, which had already been adopted. Paragraph 3 on page 13 referred to the criteria for effectiveness, which had been presented in a different form in March. Finally, page 14 set forth general recommendation II, adopted in March.
33. Mr. DIACONU thanked Mr. Banton for clearly describing the various recommendations adopted and those that had yet to be adopted or amended, as appropriate. Among the recommendations adopted, however, he pointed out that the French version of article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention retained the expression "basé sur", which excluded any other possible interpretation for the French-speaking reader. He noted that the Committee had worked on the English text. He would like to know whether the recommendations in square brackets were now going to be considered for approval or whether they would simply be reviewed and a decision taken on how to deal with them subsequently. There should be more consultations with a view to finding wordings acceptable to all, and members of the Committee who had comments to make on the recommendations not yet adopted should submit them to Mr. Banton.
34. The CHAIRMAN thanked Mr. Banton again for his efforts and said that the Committee might adopt the second procedure proposed by Mr. Diaconu, namely to proceed with a general consideration of the new recommendations, contained in square brackets, and take up members' comments, reflecting the various consultations held, in order to refine the document.
35. The meeting was suspended at 5.05 p.m. and resumed at 5.20 p.m.
36. The CHAIRMAN said he hoped the members had had the opportunity to read over the draft general recommendations submitted by Mr. Banton, in particular the new parts contained in square brackets, and invited them to make their comments.
37. Mrs. SADIQ ALI requested clarification concerning the last two sentences in paragraph 5 of the part of the draft recommendations dealing with article 2 (1) and the last two sentences in paragraph 2 of the part dealing with article 3.
38. Mr. WOLFRUM noted that not all the recommendations adopted to date had been put into narrative form, including the one on the independence of the experts. As for the recommendations between square brackets, the following points should be mentioned. In paragraph 3 of the part dealing with article 2 (1), the expression "national integration" might cause difficulties if some felt it were to imply abandonment of the cultural identity of minorities, especially as the Convention did not provide for compulsory integration. As for paragraph 4 on the same article, which dealt with the responsibilities of ministries or institutions in respect of the various requirements of the Convention, it appeared to have gone too far. In addition, the second sentence in paragraph 2 of the part dealing with article 3 might imply that it was necessary under the Convention to limit freedom of movement and residence in order to avoid segregation; that would be a rather curious notion, particularly considering the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In paragraph 2 of the part dealing with article 5, difficulties of the same type emerged: it was indeed conceivable that civil and political rights might be limited in order to achieve the complete prohibition of racial discrimination, but the Committee should be careful to formulate that recommendation in the light of the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee. Finally, in the part dealing with article 6, the expression "homogeneous populations" was somewhat disturbing, for it might bring to mind the ethnic cleansing so widely reported in the media in recent times.
39. Mr. DIACONU said that the wording of recommendations 3, 4 and 5 on article 2 (1) of the Convention was too descriptive. A State could not be required to issue and publicize a description of its policy generally speaking; it could only be asked to describe its policy for eliminating racial discrimination in its reports to the Committee. Similarly, very few States would be prepared to admit that they pursued a policy of national integration, for the concept of integration implied a value judgement. Nor was it necessary to say that a State should describe the responsibilities of particular ministries or institutions in respect of the various requirements of the Convention, or to refer to the press or other means of monitoring discrimination. In his view, a more general wording should be adopted, indicating that States should describe their policy for eliminating racial discrimination and the legal and administrative measures they had taken to implement the provisions of the Convention.
40. Turning to article 2 (1) (e) of the Convention, he said that the second sentence in recommendation 3 should be deleted, for there, too, speaking of victims or potential victims implied that racial discrimination existed. He also proposed deleting the second and third sentences in recommendation 2 on article 3 of the Convention in order to avoid saying that freedom of movement could give rise to segregation, for even if that might be the case, it was generally other practices that led to segregation.
41. Regarding article 5 of the Convention, in his view the wording of recommendation 2 was unclear and should be changed. Recommendation 4 raised several questions. The first sentence stated that certain economic, social and cultural rights might in some States be regulated by private bodies yet private bodies issued regulations that were applicable to their members only, and not to the population in general. Moreover, the second sentence stipulated that States should not adopt any regulation which had the purpose or effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination, whereas article 5 of the Convention took another approach, since it required States to undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms, in other words to prohibit any regulations aimed at creating or perpetuating racial discrimination. That sentence should therefore be changed to be brought into line with article 5 of the Convention.
42. Turning to article 6, he said he also found the wording of recommendation 3 to be too descriptive. It was not necessary to say that States should attempt to assess the effectiveness of the protections and remedies provided, if possible by empirical investigation but otherwise by consultation with representatives of those groups for whom the protections were intended. In addition, to state that it was often difficult for an aggrieved person to prove that a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference had been based on race was too descriptive and was not a recommendation.
43. Finally, regarding article 7, in his view recommendation 3 was too detailed. There again, it was sufficient to ask the State to assess the effectiveness of the measures adopted, without explaining how it should do so. In addition, reference to the representatives of those who were the objects of the prejudices should be avoided, for it implied a value judgement.
44. Mr. FERRERO COSTA congratulated Mr. Banton on the high quality of the draft general recommendations before the Committee. They contained the recommendations that had already been adopted by the Committee together with others, in square brackets, which had been given preliminary consideration. He proposed that the Committee should not adopt those recommendations at the current session but should continue to exchange views.
45. Turning to the recommendations themselves, he agreed that the wording of recommendation 3 dealing with article 2 (1) of the Convention was unclear. He also did not subscribe to the wording of recommendation 2 on article 3 and proposed that it should be amended in order to avoid any misunderstandings. The beginning of recommendation 3 on the same article was also unclear. Turning to the recommendations on article 5, he noted that the Committee had not reached a consensus during its preliminary consideration of that article; he believed that the question should be discussed further and more precise recommendations should be prepared. Regarding article 6, he had doubts concerning the wording of recommendation 2. Concerning article 7, he feared that recommendation 3, especially the second sentence in the paragraph, would impose too many obligations on States parties. In addition, the reference to the representatives of those who were the objects of prejudices did not belong in a general recommendation. In conclusion, he proposed that the Committee should continue its consideration of the wording of the recommendations that had not been adopted, especially those relating to articles 5 and 7 of the Convention.
46. Mr. de GOUTTES thanked Mr. Banton for the very useful working paper with which he had provided the Committee. Turning to the recommendations contained therein, he suggested that the wording of recommendation 3, concerning article 2 (1) of the Convention, should be modified in order to make it clear that combating racial discrimination could be part of a national integration policy or a general policy of human rights promotion and defence. He noted that in France, there was a National Human Rights Commission that defended all fundamental rights and prepared a yearly report on activities against racism. He therefore proposed that the last sentence in the recommendation should be amended to read: "Every State should indicate the place occupied by its policy for eliminating racial discrimination within its plans for increasing national integration or within its general policy of human rights defence and protection". He also wondered whether it would not be useful to ask States to give information on the social indicators of non-integration and racial discrimination such as unemployment, crime, alcoholism, drug addiction, prostitution and the size of the prison population. Finally, in connection with article 2 (1) (e) of the Convention, he would prefer recommendation 3 to refer to multiracial organizations rather than to integrationist multiracial organizations, even though that expression was used in the Convention.
47. The CHAIRMAN noted that the Committee had already had a long and difficult debate on the legal and political scope of article 5 of the Convention. At the time it had decided to adopt a general recommendation, but it had not reached a consensus. That was why report A/9018, which reflected the debate that had taken place on the question at the time, did not give a clear idea of the potential scope of article 5. That having been said, it might help the Committee to develop a common point of view on the question.
48. Mr. BANTON said that the Committee should not limit itself to a discussion that had taken place in the 1970s, but rather go more deeply into the question at the current time.
49. Mr. van BOVEN noted that Mr. Banton's document reproduced general recommendations that had been adopted and added recommendations that had been given preliminary consideration but not yet been adopted. That having been said, he noted that the document did not cover all the paragraphs in the articles of the Convention, and he wondered whether the final goal was to prepare recommendations for all the articles of the Convention and all their various paragraphs. In other words, in addition to the wording of the recommendations under consideration, the Committee should also look into the structure of the document.
50. The CHAIRMAN said that the debate that had taken place at the current meeting was very important and that the exchange of views should help Mr. Banton improve the draft general recommendations.