Decides to Consider Case of the Western
Shoshone in the United States Under its Early Warning and Urgent Action
Procedure
The Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination today considered the cases of Ethiopia and Papua
New Guinea under its review procedure for States parties whose reports
were seriously overdue, and decided to consider the case of the Western
Shoshone in the United States under its early warning and urgent action
procedure.
Concerning the situation in Ethiopia, the Committee decided to send to the State party a list of questions to help it prepare its next report. It asked, among other issues, about the ethnic composition of the population and the geographic location of those groups, as well as information on internally displaced persons; about the existence of State resettlement programmes to address the issue of food shortages in the country, and whether an ethnic or racial dimension to those programmes was maintained; and about well-attested cases of violence against Anuak in the Gambella region in the period from 2002 to 2004, and unrest in the Oromo region.
With regard to the situation in Papua New Guinea, the Committee decided to postpone action until its August session. It said the population in Papua New Guinea was indigenous, and one of the most heterogeneous in the world. Five years ago, representatives of the National Government, the rebels, the Security Council and the States in the region had negotiated a peace agreement. Elections scheduled for April 2005 had not taken place because of continuing discussions on the Constitution and the establishment of a Government.
On the case of the Western Shoshone in the United States, because of the compelling evidence presented, the Committee decided to consider it under its the early warning and urgent action procedure, not with the goal of provoking the United States Government, but with the objective of remedying the situation through dialogue and negotiation with the State party. It agreed that it would decide on action to be taken on the case during the final week of the present session which concludes on 10 March.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to take up the initial to fourteenth periodic reports of Guyana (CERD/C/472/Add.1).
Situation in Ethiopia under Review Procedure
PATRICK THORNBERRY, Committee Expert acting as Country Rapporteur for Ethiopia, said that Committee members had a list of questions to be submitted to the State party to help it in drafting its country report. He noted that Ethiopia had ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1976, and had reported to the Committee consistently until 1987. The Committee had issued concluding observations on the country's last report in 1990. Reports seven to fifteen, for the period from 1989 through 2005, were overdue. The Committee had agreed to the State party's request for postponement in March 2005. Ethiopia had reported to other treaty bodies in the interim period since their last report to this Committee.
Mr. Thornberry said that there was no core document on Ethiopia and that there was a real lack of basic statistics on the country. He noted that at the last meeting the State party said they did not have the resources or know-how to conduct a census. Ethiopia was a long-established country, which had undergone a number of significant changes and was currently ruled by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front, which took power in 1991. Political structures had been significantly revised in the 1990s and a system of ethnic federalism had been installed. There were 80 ethnic groups and 9 main regions in the country. The new Constitution had been established in 1994. Elections held in 2005 had shown an increase in support for opposition parties. However, questions surrounding those elections persisted. Demonstrations had been held and there were reports of people killed. Well-attested cases of violence against Anuak in the Gambella region had occurred in the period from 2002 to 2004. There had also been unrest in the Oromo region. Unfortunately for the country, it suffered from both a prevalence of drought and from internal and regional conflicts.
Highlighting some key areas touched on by the questions, Mr. Thornberry said, first, there was a request for information on the ethnic composition of the population and the geographic location of those groups, as well as information on internally displaced persons. Next, though the principle of equality was enshrined in the Ethiopian Constitution, it was asked what the legal framework and subsidiary legislation was that ensured the protection of racial discrimination in the State party. Constitutional restructuring and the existence of many minority groups in the country in various regions made that question especially relevant. Given that it appeared most legal cases were brought at local-level religious and customary courts, the majority of which were in rural areas, the Committee wanted information on what measures had been taken to ensure that those courts operated in conformity with the Convention. The Federal Minister of Ethiopia had acknowledged the difficulty of enforcing justice at the local level.
There had been extensive information on killings of Anuak in the Gambella region, as well as of unrest in connection with the Oromo, and the Ethiopian Government was asked to clarify and provide information on the situations of both of those minority groups, Mr. Thornberry said. Noting the existence of a State resettlement programmes to address the issue of food shortages in the country, information was requested on what protections existed for those who participated and to ensure that there was an ethnic or racial dimension to those programmes.
In the ensuing discussion, Experts asked what had happened to the trials that should have been held to punish crimes committed by members of the former regime. Other Committee Experts expressed the feeling that other measures should be considered, aside from the submission of questions, to prompt the State party to report, including by visits of Committee Experts to the State party.
The list of questions, as amended orally, was adopted for transmission to the State party. The State party would be informed that in the absence of a reply, in accordance with its practice, the Committee would consider the situation in the State party without a report. The issue of other methods of prompting the State party to comply with its reporting obligations would be considered by the Committee later in the session.
Situation in Papua New Guinea under Review Procedure
NOURREDINE AMIR, Committee Expert acting as Country Rapporteur for Papua New Guinea, said that in March 2005, the Chairman had requested the delegation of Papua New Guinea in New York to address the serious situation in Bougainville in light of the fact that communication with the State party had been interrupted since 1984. The Committee had also sent letters requesting responses from the delegation in August 1995, August 1997, and March 2002, but there had been no replies. The State party had said it would send a representative to Geneva to discuss the situation with a representative of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, but since then nothing had been done.
Giving an overview of the country, Mr. Amir said that it had 19 provinces, each with its own constitution. It was an active member of the British Commonwealth. The head of State was the Governor General. The population was indigenous, and one of the most heterogeneous in the world. There were several thousand communities, each distinct from the other, with only a few hundred people each. Those communities were divided by language, habit, traditions and age-old conflicts among the various tribes. That situation had led to civil war between the inhabitants of Bougainville, an island, and the National Government. In that context there had been killings, disappearances, and refugees have fled to other countries in the region. The Security Council had sent political and military observers. Five years ago, representatives of the National Government, the rebels, the Security Council and the States in the region had negotiated a peace agreement. That political settlement had established Papua New Guinea as an autonomous territory, with an autonomous government and constitution. Elections scheduled for April 2005 had not taken place because of continuing discussions on the Constitution and the establishment of a Government. According to information received two months ago, Mr. Amir said, that process appeared to be moving forward.
Since December 2005, 80 per cent of the weapons in the region had been destroyed and there was a movement towards the complete destruction of conventional military weapons in the country.
The problem was that it was hard to say what could be done in light of the current efforts under way to establish a national Government. The first option was to send the Committee's decision to the Government now; the second, to delay submission until August to await significant results from discussions currently under way in Bougainville. Mr. Amir favoured the second option as being the most likely to obtain the desired result of the submission of the country report.
The Committee agreed to postpone action until its August session, in accordance with Mr. Amir's suggestion.
Case of Western Shoshone
PATRICIA NOZIPHO JANUARY-BARDILL, Chairperson of the working group on early warning and urgent action procedures, said that in his 15 February 2006 reply to Mr. Yutzis's letter concerning the case of the Western Shoshone, the United States Ambassador had acknowledged the Committee's concluding observations on the State party's third periodic report, presented in 2001, and had said that the question would be addressed in the next, fourth and fifth, periodic reports of the United States. The Ambassador had said that the issues the petitioners had raised were not "novel" and that the question did not warrant consideration under the early warning and urgent action procedure. In light of that response, the working group had undertaken to consider whether the Committee should continue to consider the case under the early action and urgent warning procedure and to formulate suggestions.
All Committee members had received additional information both in writing and in terms of visual images in an informal presentation made by a delegation of the Western Shoshone to the Committee yesterday. That informal presentation demonstrated evidence of massive and persistent discrimination against the group by the State party. In that regard, Ms. January-Bardill recalled that, in his report to the Security Council Summit of 1992, the Secretary-General had stressed the primary importance of early warning and preventive action to ensure that existing disputes did not escalate into conflicts and identified the need to find ways to address such situations. At that time, all treaty bodies were urged to identify such urgent situations of massive human rights violations and to refer them to the Security Council.
The working group recommended that, because of the compelling evidence presented, that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination monitor the case of the Western Shoshone under its the early warning and urgent action procedure, not with the goal of provoking the United States Government, but with the objective of remedying the situation through dialogue and negotiation with the State party.
The Committee agreed that it would decide on action to be taken on the case of the Western Shoshone under the early warning and urgent action procedure during the final week of its present session.
For use of the information media; not an official record