The Human Rights Committee protecting minorities
description
Transcript of The Human Rights Committee protecting minorities
THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE PROTECTING MINORITIESProf. Michael O’FlahertyJune 2010
The Committee
The ICCPR treaty body 18 independent experts elected by
States Parties Review of periodic reports Consider individual communications Generate General Comments
Members of Minorities and the ICCPR
Entitlement to all Covenant protections – many of which are directly relevant to well-being of minority groups and their members
Entitlement to all article 2, 3 and 26 discrimination protections
The particular protections of article 27
General Comment 23 of 1994
Rights of individuals only
Article 27
‘In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language’.
Background
The tension of the assimilationist and protectionist models
Nothing in UDHR 1948 GA calls on HRComm to detail measures to
protect minorities 1950 - Sub Comm of HRComm instead drafts
article for Covenant 1953 – taken up by HRComm:
Soviet & Yugoslav v. the assimilationist latter prevail
1961 reaches GA: new members tend towards assimilation model
General Comment 23 on article 27 General observations
- Rights distinct from and additional to other Covenant rights
- Rights may not be exercised to deprive other rights of Covenant
- “The protection of these rights is directed towards ensuring the survival and continued development of the cultural, religious and social identity of the minorities concerned, thus enriching the fabric of society as a whole”
“Minority”
Prevalence of most elements of Capotorti definition:
1. numerically inferior in State 2. non-dominant position 3. ethno-religious-linguistic difference 4. solidarity inter-se Numeric refers to entire population of State:
Ballantyne and others v. Canada (1989) But need not be citizens (note tension
between GC 23 and Capotorti view) Existence is matter of fact not law or
acknowledgement (GC 23)
“Exist”
What level of stability / establishment required?
GC on Minorities: extreme flexibility – GC’s rather promiscuous approach not reflected in practice
Merits of having some form of “stability” requirement from points of view of protection needs, respect for diverse approaches to minority issues, etc.
Types of minority
EthicReligiousLinguisticClosed list
“Ethnic”
From race to ethnicity Perils of application of notions of
race, culture and ethnicity Indigenous groups (e.g. Lovelace v.
Canada; Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada)
Indigenous groups even when they do not so identify? (Poma v. Peru, 2008)
Who bears the right?
Minority rights as meaningless without acknowledgements of the collective
But clear that the right resides in the individual (consistent with classic theories of human rights law)
Test of membership of the individual in the group has objective and subjective elements for all three categories (ethnicity, religion, language) (Lovelace v. Canada)
Difficulty in practice of application of test: Kitoc v Sweden
“enjoy their own culture”
Capotorti: broad sense HRC and economic elements:
Kitok v. Sweden (1985) – reindeer husbandry
Poma v. Peru (2009) – llama husbandry GC 23: hunting and fishing Limits: Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia (2000)
– the cattle of the Rehoboth community – inconsistent with Poma?
“profess and practice their own religion”
Prince v. South Africa (2007):
Not every interference constitutes a violation.
“use their own language”
Different pronunciation, some dialectical differences may not constitute separate language
No right to have a language made an “official language”
Mavlonov and Sadi v. Uzbekistan: education in minority language/minority language press
Nature of obligation
Negative element is clear Positive element: the conceptual
challenge of ensuring a negatively expressed right
But without it what point to art 27? GC 23: “positive measures by States may
also be necessary to protect identity of a minority”
Positive measures (a) Protective; (b) Promotional
Positive protection elements regarding State and 3rd party action:
Kitok: protect against indigenous group
Lubicon Band: protect against commercial interests (oil & gas)
Mahwika v. New Zealand: protect against commercial interests (fishing)
Compatibility of positive measures with articles 2 and 26 (GC 23)
Promotional positive measures – guidance from reporting procedures.
Consultations
Significance of consultation (Mahwika) Poma:- Opportunity to participate in decision making process
(including by affected individual/author)- Effective participation- Requires the free, prior and informed consent of members
of the community
(UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples: States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them).
What can report review procedure tell us?
Periodic reporting provision NGO submissions Review by Committee Concluding Observations Follow up
In assessing jurisprudential significance, take note of:
Status of Concluding Observations Clustered approach of the Committee
Minorities and the reporting procedure
Georgia: allow minorities to use own languages at local level; improve Georgian language instruction
Czech Republic/Austria/Macedonia: provide better educational opportunities for Roma children
Croatia: avoid segregation in school for Roma Ireland: recognize Travellers as ethnic minority San Marino: reconsider view that ethnic minorities
don’t exist, given immigration trends Chile: reconsider definition of terrorism that allows
charges against Mapuche community seeking land rights
Japan: increase subsidies for Korean language schools
Reporting and recognition of minorities
Roma Refuting the “national minorities”
approach Not limited to State classifications
- “we have none”: Kuwait, Gabon, Rwanda, Tanzania, Gambia, Greece (except Muslims in Thrace)
- denial of status: travellers in Ireland
Reporting and identifying good practice
Netherlands 2001: workforce incentives for minorities
Finland 2004: role in setting up European Forum for Roma
Hong Kong 2005: establishment of ethnic minorities forum
Costa Rica 2007: prosecutor’s office specializing in indigenous affairs
France 2008: body create to receive individual complaints and suggest legislative changes
Australia 2009: apology for “stolen generation”
Reporting and nature of the positive obligation
Gabon: take positive measures to guarantee rights of people belonging to minorities
Estonia: put road signs in Russian Namibia: why only one official language? (spot the
inconsistency here) Greece: Roma require positive measures regarding
housing, employment, education and social services” Thailand: minorities entitled to effective consultation /
involvement in decisions affecting their welfare Sweden: similar - role of Sami Parliament Tanzania: conduct study to “map” indigenous and minority
groups Italy: need to elaborate national action plan to implement
art 27.
Concluding points
Potential to promote minority rights under CCPR
Limited jurisprudential guidance Unsung significance of the reporting
process Towards better use of that process.