Question of Palestine home || Permalink || About UNISPAL || Search

English (pdf) ||Arabic||Chinese||Français||Русский||Español||



Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS

UNITED
NATIONS

Distr.
GENERAL
CERD/C/SR.1272
24 March 1998

Original: ENGLISH

COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Fifty-second session

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 1272nd MEETING

Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Thursday, 19 March 1998, at 3 p.m.

Chairman: Mr. ABOUL-NASR

later: Mr. DIACONU
later: Mr. ABOUL-NASR
later: Mr. SHERIFIS

CONTENTS

CONSIDERATION OF COPIES OF PETITIONS AND REPORTS UNDER ARTICLE 15 OF THE CONVENTION

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS, COMMENTS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION (continued)

Draft concluding observations concerning the seventh to ninth periodic reports of Israel (continued)



This record is subject to correction.

Corrections should be submitted in one of the working languages. They should be set forth in a memorandum and also incorporated in a copy of the record. They should be sent within one week of the date of this document to the Official Records Editing Section, room E.4108, Palais des Nations, Geneva.

Any corrections to the records of the public meetings of the Committee at this session will be consolidated in a single corrigendum to be issued shortly after the end of the session.



The meeting was called to order at 3.10 p.m.


/...

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS, COMMENTS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION (agenda item 7) (continued)

Draft concluding observations concerning the seventh to ninth periodic reports of Israel (CERD/C/52/Misc.29, future CERD/C/304/Add.45) (continued)

Paragraph 20 (continued)

4. Mr. BANTON (Country Rapporteur) proposed replacing paragraph 20 by the following new paragraph to be inserted before existing paragraph 12 in section E (Concerns and recommendations):

He had used the term “inequality of treatment” rather than “discrimination” because there were circumstances in which discrimination might be lawful.

5. Mr. ABOUL-NASR said that the wording of the paragraph was extremely weak. The fact that there was not a single expression of concern under section E meant that Israel was being sheltered from criticism and treated as a special case. He suggested as a minimum that the word “any” before “court decisions” should be deleted.

6. Mr. RECHETOV proposed replacing the word “distinguish” by “establish”.

7. Mr. BANTON (Country Rapporteur) suggested that the same end might be achieved by omitting the words “help to” before “distinguish”.

8. Mr. VALENCIA RODRIGUEZ proposed that a reference to article 6 should be inserted as it related specifically to national tribunals.

9. Mr. van BOVEN proposed that the words “or other authoritative sources” should be inserted after “court decisions”.
10. Mr. BANTON (Country Rapporteur) read out the following amended version of the paragraph:

11. Paragraph 20 (new paragraph 12), as amended, was adopted.

New paragraph 14

12. Mr. BANTON (Country Rapporteur) proposed inserting the following new paragraph relating to article 5 (b) after paragraph 13:

13. Mr. ABOUL-NASR welcomed the expression of concern but felt that the word “prisoners” was inaccurate in view of the ambivalent status of the persons concerned. He pointed out that the Supreme Court had not just failed to declare inhuman and degrading interrogation illegal, but had actually made it legal.

14. Mr. de GOUTTES proposed replacing the word “prisoners” by “arrested persons”, a broader term which would cover suspects who had not been brought before a court.

15. Mr. BANTON (Country Rapporteur) suggested “detained persons” as an alternative.

16. It was so agreed.

17. New paragraph 14, as amended, was adopted.

Paragraph 21 (continued)

18. Mr. BANTON (Country Rapporteur), referring to the point made by Ms. McDougall at the previous meeting to the effect that inequalities could arise at many stages in the process of administration of criminal justice, said that the listing of all stages would lead to imbalance in the paragraph. It was also a form of wording that had not been used for other States parties.

19. Mr. SHAHI asked why the term “discrimination”, which was that used in article 6 of the Convention, had been replaced by inequality.

20. Mr. BANTON (Country Rapporteur) said that discrimination was one of many possible explanations for inequalities, which were simply a matter of fact. It was often easier to establish the existence of inequalities.
21. Mr. ABOUL-NASR said that failure to treat people on equal terms was defined under the Convention as discrimination.

22. Mr. SHAHI said that use of the term “inequality of treatment” instead of “discrimination” would set a precedent which would have to be followed in the Committee's dealings with other States parties.

23. Mr. de GOUTTES said he preferred the term “discrimination”, which would cover both direct and indirect forms of inequality of treatment.

24. He suggested that the expression “administration of justice” should be translated into French as “fonctionnement du système judiciaire”.

25. Mr. BANTON (Country Rapporteur) proposed amending “any inequalities” to “any inequalities suggestive of discrimination”.

26. Mr. SHAHI said that the proposed amendment was an improvement but warned that it still might be invoked as a precedent by other States parties.

27. Mr. de GOUTTES supported the proposed amendment and suggested that it should be translated into French as “toutes formes d'inégalités faisant apparaître une discrimination”.

28. Paragraph 21, as amended, was adopted.

29. The draft concluding observations concerning the seventh to ninth periodic reports of Israel as a whole, as amended, were adopted.

30. Mr. ABOUL-NASR said that, despite his reluctance to undermine the consensus on the concluding observations concerning Israel, he would have voted against them if they had been put to the vote. He felt that Israel had been treated leniently and that the text was extremely weak. It contained only one expression of concern regarding a State party in which not a day went by without reports in the media of flagrant cases of racial discrimination and injustice.

31. Mr. SHAHI associated himself with Mr. Aboul-Nasr's statement.

32. Mr. Aboul-Nasr resumed the Chair.

/...

The meeting rose at 6.10 p.m.

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter