Consideration of reports, comments and information submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention (continued)
Twelfth periodic report of the Islamic Republic of Iran (continued)
World Conference on Human Rights (continued)
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 Islamic Republic of Iran (CERD/C/226/Add.8) (continued)
1. At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. Alaee and Mr. Tabatabai (Islamic Republic of Iran) took places at the Committee table.
2. Mr. TABATABAI (Islamic Republic of Iran) said that he was prepared to reply to the questions and observations of the members of the Committee to the best of his abilities, provided that they fell within the scope of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Some questions seemed to come, rather, within the purview of other international bodies, such as the Human Rights Committee or the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. He referred those members of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination who were interested to the reports and presentations made by his country's delegation before those two bodies.
3. Moreover, it would have been desirable for the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to have followed a similar procedure to that of other Committees, which convened a pre-sessional working group in order to submit to States parties a list of issues prepared beforehand in order to enable them to provide detailed replies.
4. Concerning the ethnic composition of the country's population, he said that Iran had not carried out any census of the ethnic origin of its citizens. Nevertheless, he took careful note of the Committee's desire for the ethnic factor to be included in future population censuses. In that connection, he said that, pursuant to articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Convention, the Government paid particular attention to protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals, regardless of any ethnic consideration. In addition, no reference was made to ethnic origin in job application forms or application forms for posts in the civil service or for university entrance.
5. As for the percentage of ethnic groups represented in Parliament, he said that no census had been carried out to determine the figures, although it should be easy to obtain them as there were less than 300 members of parliament in Iran.
6. In reply to a question concerning administrative justice (art. 173 of the Constitution), an Administrative Justice Tribunal under the authority of the Supreme Judicial Council was responsible for examining complaints, grievances and protests from individuals against government officials, units or regulations or concerning the recognition of their rights. A number of cases had been set before that body by virtue of that article of the Constitution, as the Iranian delegation to the Human Rights Committee had mentioned. For any further information, the Country Rapporteur should consult the periodic reports submitted by Iran to that Committee.
7. Moreover, all Iranian citizens who had reached the required age were entitled to vote and to stand for election, regardless of their ethnic origin.
8. Numerous questions had been asked about the Baha'is, and there again he referred those members of the Committee who were interested to the documents prepared for the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which dealt at length with that question and described the official position of the Government thereon. Nevertheless, he pointed out that Iran, like 51 other Islamic States, did not recognize the Baha'is as a religious group. Furthermore, under article 23 of the Constitution, which stipulated that no one could be vilified or reprimanded for his opinions, the rights of all citizens had to be protected regardless of their ideas, convictions or political beliefs. The case of Mr. Samandari, who had been executed, not by virtue of a decision of the courts but pursuant to a decision taken by a military organ, was currently the subject of further investigation.
9. Regarding the question of censorship and State control over the press, he said that in the Islamic Republic of Iran there were over 600 magazines, daily newspapers, monthly and annual journals, with a circulation of over 450 million. In addition, daily newspapers openly criticized government policy without being banned or censored for doing so.
10. As some experts had referred to the resolutions adopted by the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, he stated that in the view of his delegation that body had exceeded its mandate on many points, and had frequently overlapped with the Commission on Human Rights. In Iran's case, the members of the Sub-Commission had not even bothered to check the information they had included in their resolutions; they had drawn conclusions on the basis of distorted information. For that reason, his delegation refused to recognize those charges as valid and would not discuss any further the resolutions referred to by the members of the Committee.
11. Regarding the percentage of minority groups in higher education, he said that ethnic origin did not appear on any application form for the entrance examination to university or to any other higher education establishment, or on any enrolment form. For that reason, no figures were available to enable the Government to answer that question. In that regard, he emphasized the need for a better understanding of the social structure of States, of the behaviour of their peoples and of the values to which nations subscribed in order to ascertain whether or not ethnic identity played a role in a particular society.
12. As for the possibility for members of ethnic groups to be represented in Parliament, any citizen who satisfied the requirements could be elected to Parliament, regardless of his ethnic origin.
13. Regarding the judicial system, the manner in which judges were selected and the organization of human rights training courses, he said that there was a law faculty within the judicial system, which provided training courses for judges, particularly on international instruments.
14. Referring to the study currently being carried out by the International Labour Organisation into the working conditions of persons of different racial or ethnic origin in 10 countries, he said that the Islamic Republic of Iran would contact ILO in order to obtain further information on the programme and request to take part.
15. In reply to a question by Mrs. Sadiq Ali, he said that there was no multiracial organization pursuing its own particular goals in Iran. Iranian society was not multiracial. The Aryan race had always been present on the territory of the former Persia, and if it had been able to spread into neighbouring regions, there was nothing to indicate that other races had settled in the region occupied by present-day Iran. It was inappropriate to assume there was a problem when no problem existed.
16. To conclude, he again urged the members of the Committee to refer to the documents submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the on Human Rights Committee and to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for any information within the sphere of competence of those two bodies. He was grateful for the unexpected interest they had shown not only in the elimination of racial discrimination in Iran, but also in other aspects of the human rights situation there. Lastly, he hoped that his country's next report would come closer to satisfying the Committee's expectations.
17. Mr. GARVALOV (Country Rapporteur for the Islamic Republic of Iran) said he was gratified that a dialogue had been possible between the representative of Iran and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and that Iran had recognized the Committee's competence. However, without wishing to enter into an argument, he felt the need to clarify certain points. Firstly, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was composed of independent experts and was not under the authority of any other international human rights bodies. When a State party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination submitted its periodic report, it did so after having freely chosen to accede to the Convention and having accepted its obligations under article 9 of the Convention. The questions put had always been circumscribed by the Convention. For example, he had not asked any direct questions about censorship in Iran to allege that there was no press freedom; he had simply mentioned that newspapers were not allowed to promote minority rights.
18. Nor had he asked any general questions that might be within the scope of the Human Rights Committee or of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
19. Moreover, he could not agree with the representative of Iran's insistence that Iran was not a multiracial society; that assertion was in contradiction with the statement made in the eighth periodic report, which mentioned Kurdish, Baluchi, Arabic, Turkish and Turkomen-speaking ethnic groups, etc. Regarding the demographic composition of the population, he said that when Iran's seventh periodic report had been considered at New York in 1983, it had been stated that "detailed demographic information about the ethnic composition of the Republic would be provided in the eighth report" (CERD/C/SR.615, para. 45).
20. The reply to the question about the status of the Baha'i community was unsatisfactory, particularly since Iran was a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which like the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (art. 5) contained provisions relating to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
21. He asked what the status of the Convention was in relation to domestic legislation and whether a complaint could be lodged on the basis of its provisions. In conclusion, he said that in contrast to the twelfth periodic report, the eighth periodic report submitted by Iran had followed the Committee's guidelines and contained relevant information, and he hoped that the thirteenth periodic report would develop all that information in a more comprehensive document.
22. Mr. van BOVEN said he had the impression that the Committee had just completed a futile exercise. Although the representative of Iran had provided some additional information, he had suggested that some questions were inappropriate, that they were beyond the competence of the Committee, that they concerned resolutions that were not deemed to be valid or that the questions had already been answered before other committees. Such an exercise was futile because the report submitted by Iran contained too little information to serve as a basis for a genuine dialogue. Accordingly, he urged the representative of Iran to provide all the additional information that had been requested without delay.
23. Mr. WOLFRUM subscribed to all the remarks made by Mr. Garvalov and Mr. van Boven and felt that he had witnessed a dialogue of the deaf. He referred to article 9 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and pointed out that neither Iran's written report nor its oral presentation made any reference to the practical measures adopted by Iran to combat racial discrimination. It was true that articles 19, 21 and 22 of Iran's Constitution prohibited racial discrimination, but there were similar provisions in virtually all the world's constitutions; however, one might ask which State could genuinely boast that racial discrimination was absent from it. Accordingly, information on the practical implementation of the Constitution would be desirable. In his view, the report submitted by Iran was non-existent, and in particular failed to provide a satisfactory reply regarding the Baha'i community. Iran's failure to recognize the Baha'is as a religious group was contrary to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which contained far more precise and detailed provisions than the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the representative of Iran had referred. Moreover, article 4 and article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention were completely outside the scope of the Covenant. He explained that the Committee was not interested in knowing whether students were asked whether they were of Kurdish or Baluchi origin etc. when they began their university studies; it was more interested in knowing how many students from, inter alia, Kurdistan, Baluchistan, etc., were attending university and whether they actually enjoyed the same rights as other students. Accordingly, he asked the representative of Iran to provide additional information on that point as well as on all the other issues necessary to assess the implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in Iran.
24. Mr. de GOUTTES also deplored the inadequacy of the information contained in the twelfth periodic report of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which had compelled the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to seek information elsewhere, while endeavouring to avoid two snares: on the one hand, the risk of creating problems where there were none, and on the other of denying the existence of genuine problems. In his view the Committee had performed its task objectively and he asked the representative of Iran, who had rejected the criticisms contained in the Sub-Commission's documents, what he thought of the allegations of human rights violations or racial discrimination contained in other sources - the report by Mr. Galindo Pohl (E/CN.4/1993/41), the report by Amnesty International, etc. In conclusion, he deplored the fact that the Iranian Government should tarnish its international image by failing to provide information on human rights violations and urged it to show more willingness to engage in a genuine dialogue on that issue.
25. Mr. YUTZIS pointed out to the representative of Iran that most of the questions asked by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination went to the very heart of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; some of them explored specific points of the Convention in greater depth. In addition, he would like to have a reply from Iran on the status of the Baha'i community. The very fact that Iran did not recognize that community was tantamount to admitting that it was ipso facto recognized in a negative fashion, and he also pointed out that the Baha'i community had been mentioned - since 1980 - in the resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights and of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, as well as being referred to in Amnesty International's most recent report.
26. Mr. TABATABAI (Islamic Republic of Iran) regretted that he had not provided all the clarifications requested. For that reason, he was unable to answer so vast a question as the alleged prohibition on the promotion of minority rights by newspapers, although he offered to look into any more specific cases reported to him. It was true that different languages were spoken in Iran, but the Kurdish and Turkish speakers, for example, were not considered to constitute distinct races: they were simply Iranians who spoke different languages.
27. The matter of the status of the Convention in the Iranian legal system could only be addressed by a jurist. Although the exact terms of the Convention were not to be found in Iranian legislation, there was no contradiction between the overall tenor of Iran's Constitution, laws and regulations and the spirit of the Convention.
28. He believed that he had taken part in a useful dialogue, and not a futile one as had been suggested, and undertook to report on the discussion in detail to his country's authorities. His delegation had appeared before the Committee with good intentions and with a willingness to provide all the information in its possession.
29. He had not limited his statements solely to the provisions of the Constitution, but had also addressed their implementation. Moreover, it was mandatory for the Executive to take into account any decision adopted by Parliament. As he himself was not in a position to describe in detail Iran's various laws and regulations, he would request that detailed information on the subject should be provided in the next periodic report.
30. Regarding the allegation that the Baha'is were banned from attending university, he said that the Constitution prohibited the Government from seeking to determine anyone's beliefs; there was no law to prohibit access by anyone to higher or university education on religious grounds.
31. It was not possible to specify the number of students from Kurdistan enrolled at university, for want of a census that recorded ethnic origin; he invited the members of the Committee to investigate on the spot if they so wished, although they should bear in mind that such a peculiar question might surprise the students. In that respect, he suggested the Committee should examine whether there was a genuine problem, or whether, on the contrary, an attempt was being made to create one.
32. His Government intended to adopt an open stance and not to brush aside Iran's problems, which were moreover well known throughout the world. Regarding the allegations made in some reports, he recalled what had occurred at the Commission on Human Rights two years previously. It had been possible to draw up a resolution on the human rights situation in Iran by consensus with the authors, principally Western countries. As a result of essentially political manoeuvres, the desire for a dialogue had been dissipated and the resolution finally adopted had included a range of unsubstantiated allegations about Iran, without Iran being given the opportunity to defend itself or to tone down the resolution. Given the political motivations of the Commission on Human Rights, Iran did not intend to bend over backwards to refute those allegations; it considered that such a resolution was virtually worthless.
33. The Islamic Republic of Iran did not claim to possess a perfect legal system, although its range of laws and regulations was constantly being amended, as was currently the case with the Civil Code. However, it could pride itself on a markedly better situation in terms of democracy than certain of its neighbours, some of which even lacked a Parliament. The Commission on Human Rights failed to react when it was informed of systematic violations in certain countries, yet it had no hesitation in denouncing Iran. That was why Iran, which was perfectly aware who was pulling the strings, openly criticized the Commission. Nevertheless, it applied its Constitution fairly.
34. He recognized that his country had to improve its international image and to develop a genuine human rights dialogue. The problem was to convince those concerned to resist the temptation to politicize the situation, and rather to assess it in a realistic manner, on the basis of the social phenomena and problems encountered by Iran. Lastly, he expressed surprise at the negative tone of Mr. Yutzis' remarks, as Iran had made a maximum of information available to him and had already addressed in detail before other bodies the history of the Baha'is and their demands, in particular their religious demands, for example in connection with the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
35. The CHAIRMAN thanked the delegation of Iran for the explanations it had provided.
36. Mr. BANTON, referring to the reply by the delegation of Iran to the request for demographic data, pointed out that censuses were not the sole source of such information. If there were no figures, it was possible to obtain qualitative data. For example, in order to identify the ethnic composition of university students, it was possible to question the teachers, who were often aware of their students' origins, or to carry out a survey of university clubs to which students speaking the same language belonged.
37. In order to dispel a misunderstanding, he pointed out to the delegation of Iran that no member of the Committee had referred to the Kurdish "race". He also emphasized that the concept of the "Aryan race" to which the majority of Iran's population allegedly belonged was a notion dating from the previous century; it was no longer employed, except by certain groups because it satisfied their political interests. It was clear from article 1, paragraph 1, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination that the expression "racial discrimination" concerned any distinction based not only on race, but also on colour, descent or national or ethnic origin; the purpose of that definition was to avoid any misunderstanding connected with false racial doctrines that had gained currency and changed the behaviour of individuals.
38. Mr. GARVALOV pointed out that in the eighth periodic report of Iran (CERD/C/118/Add.12) reference was made to Kurdish, Baluchi and Arabic-speaking ethnic groups and recalled that, when the seventh periodic report (CERD/C/91/Add.31) had been introduced the Iranian delegation had said that detailed demographic information about the ethnic composition of the Islamic Republic would be provided in the eighth report. That statement confirmed the existence of ethnic groups in Iran.
39. He also noted that the eighth periodic report of Iran had indicated that the principles of the Constitution and laws on labour and social affairs, as well as the regulations and policies of the Ministry of the Interior, had provided for minority rights, without specifying what those rights were.
40. Mr. TABATABAI (Islamic Republic of Iran) pointed out first of all that when, in reply to the request for demographic data, he had indicated that no census had been carried out, he had simply been stating a fact. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that there were other means of obtaining demographic data.
41. With reference to Mr. Garvalov's remark about the existence of a multiracial system in Iran, the fact that people spoke different languages did not, in his view, mean that they belonged to different races. There were indeed ethnic groups in Iran, but their members were first and foremost Iranian citizens who possessed the same rights and were treated equally, or even privileged. In Parliament for example, Christians, who accounted for a small percentage of the population, were entitled to three seats, whereas the Muslims, of whom there were 60 million, had 200 seats. In addition, in the spirit of Islam, whoever held power must devote greater attention to those sectors that might feel rejected. However, that did not mean giving preferential treatment to those ethnic groups, at the risk of setting them apart from the rest of the Iranian community.
42. The CHAIRMAN thanked the Iranian delegation for its cooperation and emphasized that the interest shown by the Committee in the report of the Islamic Republic of Iran testified to its desire to discharge its functions efficiently.
43. The delegation of Iran withdrew.
WORLD CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS (agenda item 8) (continued) (A/CONF.157/PC/98, A/CONF.157/PC/62/Add.15, A/CONF.157/23)
44. The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Committee should consider the question of ethnic or racial minorities in the different regions of the world, as Mr. Yutzis had suggested. In his view the issue was extremely important for the Committee, and fell within the framework of follow-up activities to the World Conference on Human Rights.
45. Mr. DIACONU wondered whether it was fundamental issues relating to the status of minorities in the world, their rights and obligations that were to be examined, or the situation of minorities in different countries in the world, as was already the case when State party reports were considered. He was prepared to address the question of minorities if the purpose of the exercise was better to understand the overall legal status of minorities. However, he did not wish to engage in a general review of the actual situation of the world's minorities; the Committee would be better advised to consider the situation of minorities in each country on the basis of the relevant country reports.
46. Mr. WOLFRUM thought that it was most important for the Committee to consider the question of minorities, which was dealt with in virtually all States party reports. In his view such a discussion fell within the framework of the follow-up activities to the World Conference on Human Rights, and a meeting devoted to considering that issue would be extremely valuable for the consideration of forthcoming States party reports. He reminded the Committee that the Sub-Commission was due to examine Mr. Eide's report on the protection of minorities (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/34 and Add.1-4) and suggested that the report should also be submitted to the Committee, or that the latter should hold a joint meeting with the Sub-Commission on that topic. In his view it was extremely important for the members of the Committee to acquaint themselves with that report and express their views on the issue.
47. Mr. LAMPTEY said he did not share Mr. Wolfrum's view. While recognizing that the question of minorities was of interest to the Committee, he felt that it should not duplicate the work of the Sub-Commission. He pointed out that all the documents of United Nations bodies that were relevant to their work were available to the members of the Committee, and that they could consult them and use them as they thought fit. He also pointed out that the Committee had to consider numerous issues on its agenda, and thought that the problem of minorities should be studied in connection with the consideration of periodic reports from States parties.
48. Mr. FERRERO COSTA thought that the question of minorities deserved to be considered, as the Committee constantly came up against it on account of its close link with racial discrimination. A general debate on that topic would permit the Committee to progress in its work and to adjust to new requirements.
49. A specific proposal had been set before the Committee to hold a joint meeting with the Sub-Commission when Mr. Eide's report on the protection of minorities was considered (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/34 and Add.1-4). Such meetings had already been organized; they could not fail to be beneficial when they concerned matters of mutual interest. He proposed that the Chairman of the Committee should approach the Chairman of the Sub-Commission to organize the meeting.
50. Mr. DIACONU pointed out that, as the competence of the Committee was restricted to questions of racial discrimination, it could not formulate recommendations and standards concerning minorities. However, it should examine questions relating to minorities on the basis of country reports. In that connection, he noted that two problems had emerged following the consideration of the periodic report of the Islamic Republic of Iran: firstly, the inadequacy of some reports - it was necessary to emphasize the need for them to be complete - and, secondly, the lack of preparation of the delegations which replied to the experts' questions. As a solution to the second problem, he suggested that the Committee should transmit its questions in advance to States and advise them to delegate to the Committee representatives who were well prepared to reply to them.
51. Mr. SHAHI said that, in order to dispel the misunderstanding that had developed about a possible debate on minorities, he wished to explain that the debate should fall within the framework of paragraphs 19 and 25 of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (A/CONF.157/23). Its purpose would be to ascertain, in view of the explosive situation threatening in several parts of the world, whether or not the question of minorities was to be an issue of overriding importance for the international community and to clarify the Committee's views in that respect.
52. Regardless of whether such a debate took place, the Committee should study document A/CONF.157/23 attentively, as it also addressed the issues of racial discrimination, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance. Pooling the thoughts to which the document gave rise might prove to be a source of fresh ideas.
53. Although Mr. Eide's report on the protection of minorities was not yet available, he knew that it contained recommendations concerning the coordination of human rights activities throughout the vast United Nations system. Action in that sphere should not be compartmentalized. While the Committee should avoid encroaching upon the territory of the Commission on Human Rights, which had appointed a Special Rapporteur to study contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, it would remain within the terms of its mandate by providing him with its support, as it had suggested. The crux of the matter was how each body could contribute to the overall effort under way to integrate the question of human rights into all the activities of the United Nations.
54. Mr. van BOVEN recalled that a meeting had been organized two years previously between the Sub-Commission, of which he had been a member, and the Committee. At the time he had viewed that initiative most favourably. He remained convinced that the idea was an extremely good one, on the express condition that those who attended such meetings were well prepared and that there was a clearly defined and coordinated programme. The question of coordination was in any case extremely important. For that reason, it was unfortunate that the Committee had not been associated with the appointment of a Special Rapporteur to study contemporary forms of racism and other forms of intolerance. It had only been able to express its interest once the decision had been taken.
55. With regard to Mr. Eide's report, he noted that it would only be available in two weeks' time; however, it was essential for the experts to have read it before any joint meeting with the Sub-Commission, and it seemed unlikely that would be feasible. However, consideration might be given to the possibility of arranging a meeting between the Committee's officers and those of the Sub-Commission to determine whether there was any issue of joint interest to the two bodies. What really mattered, was to avoid holding a meeting simply for the principle of doing so.
56. He concurred with Mr. Diaconu about the inadequate preparation of the representatives sent by reporting countries to answer the Committee's questions. He pointed out that other bodies transmitted to the countries concerned the questions which they had to answer; that made it possible for them to send experts from their Ministries. He emphasized, in passing, that it was easier for the European countries than for others, particularly the developing countries.
57. Mr. WOLFRUM subscribed to Mr. Shahi's opinion. Clearly, the Committee should agree upon its approach to minorities and draw its inspiration from paragraphs 19 and 25 of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. It was difficult to dissociate the question of minorities from that of discrimination, which was essentially practised against ethnic groups - for which reason it was in no way alien to the Committee's mandate. A meeting with the Sub-Commission on that topic, during the current year if the timetable allowed, or the following year, would undoubtedly be valuable. Whatever the case, the experts would not be exceeding their mandate - quite the contrary - by agreeing upon a joint approach to the issue of minorities. Their work and the questions they put to countries would become clearer as a result.
58. As to whether the Committee should transmit its questions to States in advance, he was not sure that that was the right method. The Commission on Human Rights was no longer particularly satisfied by that practice, as it made it necessary to circumscribe the questions. Its adoption would mean amending the Committee's methods of work and organizing pre-sessional meetings. It was true that the answers to the questions put at the current meeting had achieved a fairly mediocre result, although bearing in mind the great number of questions put to the Australian delegation, one might conclude that the value of the replies depended to a large extent on the desire for cooperation of the State party concerned.
59. Mr. YUTZIS regretted that there had not been a meeting between the Committee and the Sub-Commission during the Committee's two latest sessions, despite the need to do everything possible to strengthen coordination between the international treaty bodies. The fact that the session of the Sub-Commission and that of the Committee coincided was an opportunity that should be seized, particularly since the issue of minorities lay at the heart of the Committee's concerns.
60. Mr. de GOUTTES favoured a meeting with the Sub-Commission and re-asserted the value of such meetings in principle. There was no shortage of issues that the two bodies could study together. Naturally, they included the problem of minorities. It was a thorny issue that should be addressed from the angle of paragraph 19 of part II of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. Moreover, if the issue were to be studied in conjunction with Mr. Eide's report, the meeting between the two bodies could only be held at the following session. In the meantime, there were more urgent issues that would justify a meeting with the Sub-Commission. First of all, there was the question of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of the former Yugoslavia, to which a meeting could be devoted during the last week of the Committee's session, after its own debate on that issue. The Committee could also discuss with the Sub-Commission the early warning and emergency intervention measures it had developed. That initiative was extremely recent, and the Sub-Commission too might have innovative ideas and valuable information on that issue.
61. He also favoured the idea of transmitting to Governments the main issues which the Committee wished to raise with them. There was nothing to prevent new or more detailed questions from being asked subsequently. It was the Committee's responsibility to discuss the appropriate procedure.
62. The CHAIRMAN summarized the issues addressed by the experts under agenda item 8; he took note of the fact that none of them had commanded a consensus and concluded that all of them required more thorough discussion.