HUMAN RIGHTS

ENFORCE
DISAPPEARANCES
Enforced or involuntary disappearance refers to the
arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of
deprivation of liberty committed by agents of the State
or by persons or groups of persons acting with the
authorization, support or acquiescence of the State,
followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation
of liberty or by concealment of the fate or
whereabouts of the disappeared person, which places
such person outside the protection of the law.
It is a specific violation, it involves Public officers like
militaries unlike in Kidnapping the perpetrator is a
private person.

TORTURE
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a
person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a
third person information or a confession, punishing
him for an act he or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed, or intimidating or
coercing him or a third person, or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain
or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or
other person acting in an official capacity.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a
state of war or a threat of war, internal political in
stability or any other public emergency, may be
invoked as a justification of torture.
In general, only State authorities or agents are
responsible for human rights violation. However,
private individuals can be liable if there is directive
from State authorities.
COMMITTEE:
If an inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2
of this article, the Committee shall seek the cooperation of the State Party concerned. In agreement

with that State Party, such an inquiry may include a

visit to its territory.
TORTURE is a JUS COGENS LAW and NONDEROGABLE.
Convention cannot intervene by enforcement to the
States because the provision of the Convention is
general. It needs local application.
CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT is
part of torture. It does not have certain definition.
Standard to determine has no definition but should be
interpreted as to the circumstances involve like the
severity of the acts or the intensity and cruelty of the
suffering and pain inflicted.
In the case of IRELAND V UK, is an application of the
supposed difference between torture and cruel,
inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment.

HUMAN RIGHTS IN CROSSCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

i.

THE MEANING OF CRUEL, INHUMAN,

DEGRADING
TREATMENT
OR
PUNISHMENT

FACTORS THAT CAUSES THE VIOLATION OF

HUMAN RIGHTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Economic conditions
Structural social factors
Political expediency
Due to human action or inaction

TENTATIVE
APPROACH:

IDEAS

TO

IMPLEMENT

THE

The focus will be the right not to be subjected to cruel,

inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Ex: as dictated or at least sanctioned by the norms of
a particular cultural tradition, whereas to outsiders to
that culture, such measures constitute cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment.

DIFFERENCES
IN
PERCEPTIONS
INTERPRETATIONS OF CULTURAL VALUES:
Dominant Groups

Maintain perceptions and interpretation that

are supportive of their own interests,
proclaiming them to be the only valid view of
that culture
They may hold or at least be open to,
different perceptions and interpretations that
are helpful to their struggle to achieve justice
for themselves

ii.

CROSS-CULTURAL
ON HUMAN RIGHTS

PERSPECTIVE

Because of universal diversity, human rights should

be founded on the existing least common
denominator among the cultural traditions.
Human rights scholars and advocates should work for
cross-cultural legitimacy, so that people of diverse
cultural tradition can agree on the meaning, scope,
and methods of implementing these rights.
The author propose to broaden and deepen universal
consensus on the formulation and implementation of
human rights through internal reinterpretation of, and
cross-cultural dialogue about, the meaning and
implications of basic human values and norms.
Western writers have highlighted conflicts between
international human rights standards and certain nonwestern cultural traditions, without suggesting ways of
reconciling them. They confined their analysis on the
Western perspective.
ALISON RENTELN suggests a cross-cultural
understanding that will shed light on a common core
of acceptable rights. The approach is contented to the
least common denominator that the author find it to be
inadequate.

iii.

CULTURAL RELATIVITY AND HUMAN

RIGHTS

CULTURE
-

the totality of values, institutions and

forms of behavior transmitted within a

society, as well as the material goods

produced by man
an historically transmitted pattern of
meanings in symbols, a system of
inherited conceptions expressed in
symbolic form by means of which men
communicate, perpetuate and develop
their knowledge and attitudes towards
life.
Source of the individual and communal
world view: provides individual and the
community with the values and interests
to be pursued in life, as well as
legitimate means for pursuing them.
It is the primary force in the socialization
of individuals and a major determinant
of the consciousness and experience of
the community.

ETHNOCENTRICITY tendency to regard ones own

race or social group
It incorporates conflict and tension in the ideal model,
leading us to perceive the conflict and tension we
have within our own culture as part of the norm.
DEGREE OF ETHNOCENTRICITY is indispensable.
CULTURAL RELATIVISM appreciation of our own
ethnocentricity should lead us to respect the
ethnocentricity of others, acknowledgement of equal
validity of diverse patterns of life.
JOHN LADD relativism is identified with nibilism
because it is defined by its opponents in absolute
terms
CLIFFORD GEERTZ relativism/antirelativism
discourse in anthropology should be seen as an
exchange of warnings rather than as an analytical
debate
Morality may be universal in the sense that all
cultures have it, but that does not in any way indicate
the content of the morality, or provide criteria for
judgment or for action by members of that culture or
other cultures.
iv.

CULTURAL
UNIVERSALITY
HUMAN RIGHTS

AND

Similarities do not mean that international peace and

cooperation are not possible without total global
cultural unity.

Cultural Diversity is UNAVOIDABLE as the product of

significant past and present economic, social and
environmental differences.

AYDIN V TURKEY
-

According to the applicant, a group of

people comprising village guards and a
gendarme arrived in her village on
29 June 1993
Four members of the group came to her
parents home and questioned her
family about recent visits to the house
by PKK members
Applicant, her father, Seydo Aydn, and
her sister-in-law, Ferahdiba Aydn, were
singled out from the rest of the villagers,
blindfolded and driven away to Derik
gendarmerie headquarters.
Mr Musa itil, the commander of Derik
gendarmerie headquarters in 1993,
stated that no operations had been
conducted in or immediately around the
village on the day in question and no
incidents had been recorded
Government drew attention to the
inconsistencies
in
the
evidence
concerning the time of the incident and
the number of village guards involved as
well as to the fact that the applicant and
her family failed to recognize any of the
village guards although they all would
have come from neighbouring villages.
There she was stripped of her clothes,
put into a car tyre and spun round and
round. She was beaten and sprayed
with cold water from high-pressure jets.
At a later stage she was taken clothed
but blindfolded to an interrogation room.
With the door of the room locked, an
individual in military clothing forcibly
removed her clothes, laid her on her
back and raped her. By the time he had
finished she was in severe pain and
covered in blood. She was ordered to
get dressed and subsequently taken to
another room.
The Government also found it significant
that the applicant failed to recognise
photographs of the premises when

shown to her. Furthermore, the

Government
highlighted
several
inconsistencies in the way in which the
applicant reported on the details of the
alleged rape and assault to the public
prosecutor and to the Diyarbakr Human
Rights Association
The applicant also alleged that she and
her family have been subjected to
intimidation and harassment following
the communication by the Commission
of her application to the Government
and
particularly
following
the
Commissions decision to invite her to
give oral evidence. Her father was
repeatedly asked her address by the
public prosecutor and, on occasion, by
the police. The applicant and her
husband were also repeatedly called to
the police station for no apparent
reason, their house had been searched
and they were questioned about her
application to the Commission
Government
submitted
that
the
statements taken by the public
prosecutor revealed no element of
pressure being exerted and it was in the
interests of the applicant for further
evidence to be gathered. There was,
they contended, no substantiation of the
allegations
of
intimidation
and
harassment, the statements submitted
by the applicants representatives
having been taken by extra-judicial
means and their authenticity disputed.

ISSUES:
-

Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies:

that at the time the applicant lodged her
application with the Commission a
criminal investigation had been opened
by the public prosecutor into her
allegations. This investigation was in
fact still being actively pursued. The
decision of the Commission to declare
the application admissible and its
subsequent pronouncement on the
merits completely disregarded the steps
which were being taken under Turkish
criminal procedural law
Abuse of Process: The application was
in reality brought for propaganda
purposes to denigrate the image of

Turkey by promoting the view those

local remedies were ineffective.
The Courts Assessment of the Evidence
and the Facts Established by the
Commission:
observed
that
the
Commission was also aware of such
inconsistencies but did not consider
them to be of such a fundamental nature
as to undermine the credibility of the
applicants account. From its own
careful examination of the evidence
gathered by the Commission, it would
appear to the Court that there is in fact a
high degree of consistency between the
accounts given by the applicant, her
father and sister-in-law to the public
prosecutor and by the applicant and her
father to the delegates, which makes it
highly unlikely that the applicants
allegations were fabricated.
Article 3 of the Convention enshrines
one of the fundamental values of
democratic societies and as such it
prohibits in absolute terms torture or
inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. Article 3 admits of no
exceptions to this fundamental value
and no derogation from it is permissible
under Article 15 even having regard to
the imperatives of a public emergency
threatening the life of the nation or to
any suspicion, however well-founded,
that a person may be involved in
terrorist or other criminal activities
In order to determine whether any
particular form of ill-treatment should be
qualified as torture, regard must be had
to the distinction drawn in Article 3
between this notion and that of inhuman
treatment or degrading treatment. This
distinction would appear to have been
embodied in the Convention to allow the
special stigma of torture to attach only
to deliberate inhuman treatment causing
very serious and cruel suffering
In conclusion, there has been a violation
of Article 3 of the Convention

ISSUE: whether there is a violation of Article

3 of the European Convention on Human
Rights
-

IRELAND V UK
-

internment without trial of suspected

persons was introduced in Northern

Ireland together with the power to detain

persons for questioning over a 48 hour
period or longer
Twelve persons arrested on 9 August
1971 and two persons arrested in
October 1971 were singled out and
taken to one or more unidentified
centres
It emerges from the Commission's
establishment of the facts that the
techniques consisted of:
(a) wallstanding: forcing the detainees to
remain for periods of some hours in a
"stress position", described by those
who underwent it as being "spread
eagled against the wall, with their
fingers put high above the head against
the wall, the legs spread apart and the
feet back, causing them to stand on
their toes with the weight of the body
mainly on the fingers"; (b) hooding:
putting a black or navy coloured bag
over the detainees' heads and, at least
initially, keeping it there all the time
except during interrogation;
(c)
subjection to noise: pending their
interrogations, holding the detainees in
a room where there was a continuous
loud and hissing noise; (d) deprivation
of sleep: pending their interrogations,
depriving the detainees of sleep; (e)
deprivation of food and drink: subjecting
the detainees to a reduced diet during
their stay at the centre and pending
interrogations.
two operations of interrogation in depth
by means of the five techniques led to
the obtaining of a considerable quantity
of intelligence information, including the
identification of 700 members of both
IRA factions and the discovery of
individual responsibility for about 85
previously
unexplained
criminal
incidents

there existed at Palace Barracks in the

autumn of 1971 a practice of inhuman
treatment, which practice was in breach
of Article 3
The Convention prohibits in absolute
terms torture and inhuman or degrading

treatment or punishment, irrespective of

the victim's conduct. Unlike most of the
substantive clauses of the Convention
and of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4 (P1, P4),
Article 3 (art. 3) makes no provision for
exceptions and, under Article 15 para. 2
(art. 15-2), there can be no derogation
therefrom even in the event of a public
emergency threatening the life of the
nation
The five techniques were applied in
combination, with premeditation and for
hours at a stretch; they caused, if not
actual bodily injury, at least intense
physical and mental suffering to the
persons subjected thereto and also led
to acute psychiatric disturbances during
interrogation. They accordingly fell into
the category of inhuman treatment
within the meaning of Article 3. The
techniques were also degrading since
they were such to arouse in their victims
feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority
capable of humiliating and debasing
them and possibly breaking their
physical or moral resistance
Although the five techniques, as applied
in combination, undoubtedly amounted
to inhuman and degrading treatment,
although their object was the extraction
of confessions, the naming of others
and/or information and although they
were used systematically, they did not
occasion suffering of the particular
intensity and cruelty implied by the word
torture as so understood
5 practice is considered inhuman and
degrading treatment

TAHIR KHAN V CANADA

-

The author Tahir Khan, citizen of

Pakistan and currently residing in
Montreal, Canada. He is claiming that
he is a victim of a violation of article 3 of
the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment by Canada.
He left Pakistan and arrived in Canada.
He applied for a residence permit
claiming that he is a refugee

Immigration and Refugee Board of

Canada heard the author and concluded
that he is not a refugee within the
meaning of the Refugee Convention
Author submits that he fears persecution
from Islamic fundamentalists, the
Pakistan Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI)
and the Government of Pakistan
because of his membership in the
Baltistan Student Federation (BSF). He
states that he was a local leader and
organizer for the BSF in Rawalpindi, and
that he organized many demonstrations
to publicize the goals of his
organization. He claims that he was
arrested on several occasions and
accused of being an Indian agent.
They were taken to the police station in
Skurdu and kept in a special ISI section.
The author alleges that he and those
arrested with him were hung from the
ceiling by their hands with rope and
badly beaten. After a week of
maltreatment (cold showers, sleep
deprivation, being placed on ice-blocks),
the author was released on bail.
He was taken to jail in Hyderabad,
where he was beaten and subjected to
electric shocks. He also alleges that he
was cut on his back and that chemicals
were applied to the cuts, which caused
him severe pain. After two weeks, he
was released on bail
Medical doctor at the Hpital Saint-Luc
in Montreal affirms that the author has
marks and scars on his body which
correspond with the alleged torture.
The aim of the determination, however,
is to establish whether the individual
concerned would be personally at risk of
being subjected to torture in the country
to which he would return. It follows that
the existence of a consistent pattern of
gross, flagrant or mass violations of
human rights in a country does not as
such constitute a sufficient ground for
determining that a person would be in
danger of being subjected to torture
upon his return to that country;
additional grounds must exist that
indicate that the individual concerned
would be personally at risk.
The Committee, however, considers
that, even if there could be some doubts
about the facts as adduced by the

author, it must ensure that his security is

not endangered. The Committee notes
that evidence exists that torture is widely
practiced in Pakistan against political
dissenters as well as against common
detainees.
concludes that substantial grounds exist
for believing that the author would be in
danger of being subjected to torture
and, consequently, that the expulsion or
return of the author to Pakistan in
the prevailing circumstances would
constitute a violation of article 3 of
the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.

CONVENTION ON THE
ELIMINATION OF ALL
FORMS OF RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION - any distinction,
exclusion, restriction or preference based on race,
colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has
the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the
recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal
footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in
the political, economic, social, cultural or any other
field of public life. (ARTICLE 1 (1) CERD)
NOT APPLICABLE to distinctions, exclusions,
restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to
this convention between citizens and non-citizens
(ARTICLE 1 (2) CERD)
POLICY PURSUED:
(a) Each State Party undertakes to engage in no act
or practice of racial discrimination against persons,
groups of persons or institutions and to en sure that
all public authorities and public institutions, national
and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation;
(b) Each State Party undertakes not to sponsor,
defend or support racial discrimination by any persons
or organizations;
(c) Each State Party shall take effective measures to
review governmental, national and local policies, and

to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations

which have the effect of creating or perpetuating
racial discrimination wherever it exists;
(d) Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an
end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as
required by circumstances, racial discrimination by
any persons, group or organization;
(e) Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where
appropriate, integrationist multiracial organizations
and movements and other means of eliminating
barriers between races, and to discourage anything
which tends to strengthen racial division.
STATE PARTY needs to pass PERIODIC REPORT
every 2 years.

RIGHTS THAT MAY BE ENJOYED:

(a) The right to equal treatment before the tribunals
and all other organs administering justice;
(b) The right to security of person and protection by
the State against violence or bodily harm, whether
inflicted by government officials or by any individual
group or institution;
(c) Political rights, in particular the right to participate
in elections-to vote and to stand for election-on the
basis of universal and equal suffrage, to take part in
the Government as well as in the conduct of public
affairs at any level and to have equal access to public
service;
(d) Other civil rights, in particular:
(i) The right to freedom of movement and
residence within the border of the State;
(ii) The right to leave any country, including one's
own, and to return to one's country;
(iii) The right to nationality;
(iv) The right to marriage and choice of spouse;
(v) The right to own property alone as well as in
association with others;
(vi) The right to inherit;
(vii) The right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion;

(viii) The right to freedom of opinion and

expression;

(ix) The right to freedom of peaceful assembly

and association;
(e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular:
(i) The rights to work, to free choice of
employment, to just and favourable conditions of
work, to protection against unemployment, to
equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable
remuneration;
(ii) The right to form and join trade unions;
(iii) The right to housing;

submit their nominations within two

months.
The Secretary-General shall prepare a
list in alphabetical order of all persons
thus nominated, indicating the States
Parties which have nominated them,
and shall submit it to the States Parties.

TERM OF OFFICE 4 years; the terms of nine of the

members elected at the first election shall expire at
the end of two years
FILLING OF CASUAL VACANCIES - State Party
whose expert has ceased to function as a member of
the Committee shall appoint another expert from
among its nationals, subject to the approval of the
Committee.

(iv) The right to public health, medical care,

social security and social services;
(v) The right to education and training;
(vi) The right to equal participation in cultural
activities;
(f) The right of access to any place or service
intended for use by the general public, such as
transport hotels, restaurants, cafes, theatres and
parks.

COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION

OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
-

consists of 18 experts of high moral

standing and acknowledged impartiality
elected by STATES PARTIES
who shall serve in their personal
capacity, consideration being given to
equitable geographical distribution and
to the representation of the different
forms of civilization as well as of the
principal legal systems

ELECTION is by secret ballot. Each STATE PARTY

may nominate ONE PERSON AMONG ITS
NATIONALS
STEPS:

At least three months before the date of

each election the Secretary-General of
the United Nations shall address a letter
to the States Parties inviting them to

RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT not biologically

occurring.
-

Color in itself could not be attributed to the

race because it is something that was
socially constructed
People is the one who started differentiating
WHITE AND BLACKS

ETHNICITY is BIOLOGICAL that is the only

thing left that is natural because a person cannot
do something on which ethnic group he is born.

GENDER versus SEX

-

SEX is BIOLOGICAL
GENDER is SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED
o Sexual Orientation
o Gender Identity
o Expression
GENDER ROLES is constructed by the
people
Gender
can
be
part
of
RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION

GENERAL
RECOMMENDATION 14
(CERD)
DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION

Basic principle of HUMAN RIGHTS involves;

NON-DISCRIMINATION,
together
with
EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW and EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAW
The purpose of this recommendation is to
draw the attention of the State parties to
clarify the meaning of the RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION in ARTICLE 1(1) of the
CERD
o the words "based on" do not bear
any meaning different from "on the
grounds
of"
in
preambular
paragraph 7
o A distinction is contrary to the
Convention if it has either the
purpose or the effect of impairing
particular rights and freedoms
DIFFERENTIATION OF TREATMENT will
NOT CONSTITUTE DISCRIMINATION if the
criteria for such differentiation, based on the
objectives and purposes of the Convention,
are legitimate or fall within the scope of
Article 1 (4).
In seeking to determine whether an action
has an effect contrary to the Convention, it
will look to see whether that action has an
unjustifiable disparate impact upon a group
distinguished by race, colour, descent, or
national or ethnic origin.

GENERAL
RECOMMENDATION 25
(CERD)

GENERAL
RECOMMENDATION 20
(CERD)
NON-DISCRIMINATORY IMPLEMENTATION
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS (ARTICLE 5)

Convention obliges States to prohibit and

eliminate racial discrimination in the
enjoyment of such human rights
it is the obligation of the State Party
concerned
to
ensure
the
effective
implementation of the Convention and to
report thereon under Article 9 of the
Convention

Certain forms of racial discrimination may be

directed
towards
women
specifically
because of their gender, such as sexual
violence
committed
against
women
members of particular racial or ethnic groups
in detention or during armed conflict; the
coerced sterilization of indigenous women;
abuse of women workers in the informal
sector or domestic workers employed abroad
by their employers.
Committee will endeavour in its work to take
into account gender factors or issues which
may be interlinked with racial discrimination
Committee will include in its sessional
working methods an analysis of the
relationship between gender and racial
discrimination,
by
giving
particular
consideration to:
(a) The form and manifestation of racial
discrimination;

OF

Article 5 of the Convention contains the

obligation of State Parties to guarantee
enjoyment of RIGHTS without racial
discrimination
UN CLARIFIED that such rights and
freedoms do not constitute an EXHAUSTIVE
LIST
All States Parties are therefore obliged to
acknowledge and protect the enjoyment of
human rights, but the manner in which these
obligations are translated into the legal
orders of States Parties may differ.

(b) The circumstances in which racial

discrimination occurs;
(c) The consequences of racial
discrimination; and
(d) The availability and accessibility of
remedies and complaint mechanisms for
racial discrimination.

CONFRONTING RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION: A CERD
PERSPECTIVE
RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION
is
a
worldwide
phenomenon constitutes gender and race.
Right from the beginning of the United Nations (UN),
the brave new world of human rights was conditioned,
in the UN Charter, by the notion of enjoyment of rights
without distinction as to race, sex, language or
religion, a mantra subsumed into the human rights
canon from the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights 1948.
The International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination 1966 is still foremost
among global instruments on race, and its essential
principle has a strong claim to the status of a
peremptory norm of international law.

170 state parties CERD of which 45 made a

declaration

IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT DISCRIMINATION IS

PRIMARILY A DOMESTIC ISSUE.
CONTINUE***

JEWISH COMMUNITY V
NORWAY
JERSILD V DENMARK
SANDER V UNITED
KINGDOM
FACTS: The applicant, an Asian together with 2
others, appeared before the Birmingham Court for
trial for conspiracy to defraud. Juror arrived at the
court with complaint:
I have decided I cannot remain silent any longer. For some time
during the trial I have been concerned that fellow jurors are not taking
their duties seriously. At least two have been making openly racist
remarks and jokes and I fear are going to convict the defendants not
on the evidence but because they are Asian. My concern is the
defendants will not therefore receive a fair verdict. Please could you
advise me what I can do in this situation?

The Judge announces to the jurors that there was a

complaint and he wants the jurors to have written
notes about the complaint. The judge received 2
letters; first, was signed by all the jurors including the
juror who had sent the complaint, stated the following:
We, the undersigned members of the jury, wish to put
on record to the Court our response to yesterdays
note from a juror implying possible racial bias.
1. We utterly refute the allegation.
2. We are deeply offended by the allegation.
3. We assure the Court that we intend to reach a
verdict solely according to the evidence and without
racial bias.
Second, which the judge commended, was written by
a juror who appeared to have thought himself to have
been the one who had been making the jokes. The
juror in question explained at length that he might
have done so, that he was sorry if he had given any
offence, that he was somebody who had many
connections with people from ethnic minorities and
that he was in no way racially biased. The Jury after
such found the applicant guilty and sentenced to 5
years imprisonment, but acquitted the other one
which is also an Asian.
VIOLATION: Article 6 Section 1 of CERD: The
applicant complained that he was not tried by an
impartial tribunal.
COURT: ruled that there is violation of Article 6
Section 1 because of the process made. Court finds
that the collective denial of the allegations contained
in the note could not in itself provide a satisfactory
solution to the problem.

LK V THE NETHERLANDS
FACTS: The author, who is partially disabled, visited a
house for which a lease had been offered to him and
his family. When they arrived at the house they heard
other people shouting no more foreigners. Others
are saying that if they will lease the house, the people
will burn such and will damage the car. Author and his
friend asked official of Municipal Housing Office to
accompany them to the street but several local
inhabitants told the official that they cant accept the
author in the neighbourhood because of the rule that
NO MORE THAN 5% of the inhabitants should be
foreigners. The author then filed a complaint with the

municipal police on the ground that he had been a

victim of racial discrimination against all people who
signed the petition and those who gathered outside
the house. The police does not want to record the
complaint, but when it decided to record, they are
incomplete.
THE COMPLAINT: submits that the remarks and
statements of the residents of the street constitute
acts of racial discrimination within the meaning of
article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention, as well as of
article 137, literae (c), (d), and (e), of the Dutch
Criminal Code; the latter provisions prohibit public
insults of a group of people solely on the basis of their
race, public incitement of hatred against people on
account of their race, and the publication of
documents containing racial insults of a group of
people.
Article 5 (d) (i) and (e) (iii) of the Convention vis--vis
the author; the authors right to freely choose his
place of residence was never impaired.
STATE: denies such violation. The State party refers
to the Committees Opinion on communication No.
2/1989, where it was held that the rights enshrined in
article 5 (e) of the Convention are subject to

progressive implementation, and that it was "not

within the Committees mandate to see to it that these
rights are established" but rather to monitor the
implementation of these rights, once they have been
granted on equal terms. The State party points out
that "appropriate rules have been drawn up to ensure
an equitable distribution of housing ...", and that these
rules were applied to the authors case.
COMMITTEE: When threats of racial violence are
made, and especially when they are made in public
and by a group, it is incumbent upon the State to
investigate with due diligence and expedition. In the
instant case, the State party failed to do this.
The Committee finds that in view of the inadequate
response to the incidents, the police and judicial
proceedings in this case did not afford the applicant
effective protection and remedies within the meaning
of article 6 of the Convention.