tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/un//33 2011-11-28T07:59:15Z Movable Type 3.33 tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/un//33.1117 2011-08-17T02:33:49Z 2011-11-28T07:59:15Z

here[PDF]. His statement to the CERD is below. Distinguished members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen, On behalf of the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR), I would like to thank you for giving us this opportunity and I now have the honour and the pleasure of presenting you our new publication “ICERD and CERD: A Guide for Civil Society Actors”. First of all, let me thank all those who have contributed to this publication, especially Mr. Thornberry for his excellent analysis, advices and for writing the preface of the book,, and Ms. Habtom for her sincere support throughout the drafting and publication process. Before turning to the presentation of the new guidebook, please allow me to bring to your attention our prior publication on the same subject. Together with the Minority Rights Group International, IMADR published “The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: A Guide for NGOs” in 2001, which was prepared by the late lamented Atsuko Tanaka with Yoshinobu Namgamine. As one of the few literatures dealing with ICERD and CERD, the older publication was appreciated and utilised by not only NGOs, but also various persons and organisations. Since 2001, there have been a lot of important developments in the status of theConvention and the work of the Committee, while our society also experienced various changes, not only positive but also negative ones. The current Guide seeks to reflect those developments and changes, while taking over the basic ideas and core elements from the 2001 publication. As such, the new Guide should serve as a practical tool for all those who want to learn about ICERD and CERD, and especially those who seek to effectively utilise ICERD and engage with CERD in order to combat all forms of racial discrimination. It can also be used as a tool in human rights teaching and training. As you can see in the table of contents, the new Guide consists of three substantial parts: the first part on the Convention, the second one on the Committee and its work, and the third part on how civil society actors can or should engage with them. Some additional and complementary information is provided in the annex. In total of 16 illustration cases are included in order to exemplify various aspects and possibilities of ICERD, CERD and civil society participation. The Guide, as a whole, is aimed at enlarging and deepening the knowledge of readers and, in particular, developing the capacity of civil society actors to promote and utilise the most important instrument to combat racial discrimination. Let me also note that a Spanish version is now in preparation with assistance of OHCHR Panama office and NGOs. Translation into some other languages, such as Russian and Norwegian, is planned too in cooperation with local NGOs. In this vein, translation into other working language of the UN and the Committee will be useful for many of us and please let us know, if you have any idea or possibility of translation or cooperation in this regard. As pointed out this morning, the Convention is a living instrument, the Committee a developing body, and each society is going through various changes. Against this backdrop, we intend to regularly update the Guide at our website to catch up on all relevant developments and changes. We also intend to develop an online database on the good practice of civil society actors in utilising ICERD and engaging with CERD, such as participation in the state reporting system, use of individual communication and Early Warning and Urgent Action procedure as well as the follow-up mechanism. Such database should help us to learn from the experience of others, design and carry out own initiatives, and build on the capacity of civil society as a whole. At the same time, we seek to develop more comprehensive and focused network of civil society actors who should and can contribute to realisation of the full implementation of ICERD. Regarding the participation of NGOs in the CERD sessions, let me now express our deep appreciation to the Committee for the decision made at its 77th session to hold informal meetings with NGOs at the beginning of the respective week. In addition to or combined with lunch time briefing, this meeting provides NGOs with significant opportunity for more effective engagement with the Committee. At the 78th session, since which this meeting has been practiced, we distributed a questionnaire to some of the NGOs came to Geneva. Indeed, they all appreciated this opportunity. Regarding the harmonisation of the treaty bodies’ work, certainly such an initiative will make the access of different actors to different treaty bodies easier. At the same time, we also have to ask whether and how it can actually “strengthen” the Treaty Body System, especially regarding the specificity, focus and competence of each Committee. In any case, what we can do is to provide accurate information and assistance for those who are in need. And we will do our best. Founded in 1988, we have been working on the elimination of all forms of discrimination and racism putting special emphasis on the implementation of ICERD. Concerning the variety of persistent and emerging issues of racism and racial discrimination on the ground, resources and ability of one actor might be limited, but can be complemented by others. Based on this understanding, we will continue to communicate and cooperate with various actors and explore how better we can interact with you in order to maximise the effectiveness of existing and potential opportunities. We wish that our new publication can play a role in this context. At last, we would appreciate any ideas and suggestions of CERD members on how we can better promote the Convention, support the Committee and develop our work. I will be present at every public meeting of the Committee. Please feel free to contact me in any form. I hope you find the new publication useful. I would like to conclude by wishing you a very productive session and reiterate the great appreciation of our organisation, colleagues and partners for your extremely valuable work. Thank you.]]> tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/un//33.1110 2011-07-25T07:51:17Z 2011-11-29T03:02:32Z

Specially dedicated to those who seek t...

Specially dedicated to those who seek to work with ICERD/CERD in their combat against all forms of racial discrimination.]]> Download From Here This Guide provides information on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and how civil society actors can engage with them. The book should serve as a practical tool for all those who want to learn about ICERD and CERD, and especially those who seek to work with ICERD and CERD more effectively. It can also be used as a material in human rights teaching and training. As Mr. Patrick Thornberry, a member of CERD, commends in the Guide, we believe that the book will be found effective and useful by our readers (excerpt from the Preface dedicated by Mr. Thornberry): Racial discrimination remains one of the most pressing and sensitive human rights issues of our day, and is the cause of much conflict and suffering. Working with the Convention through the Guide will not solve every problem but will signpost avenues of redress that offer hope for many victims, actual and potential, of racial discrimination. There is good advice and practical wisdom in the present Guide on how to make the best of opportunities for engaging with CERD. Its publication is a significant occasion for all stakeholders in the fight against racism. Civil society in particular should take advantage of the occasion: Carpe Diem!

Patrick Thornberry

July 2011

]]> tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/un//33.1059 2011-04-22T10:00:42Z 2011-11-28T07:58:17Z

...

Bolivia, Cuba, Uruguay, Norway, Ireland, Spain, Serbia, Yemen, Armenia, Moldova, Lithuania and Rwanda (in the order of examination). On February 15 and 21, CERD had an informal meeting with NGOs that provided information on some of these countries (Bolivia and Uruguay on 15; Norway, Ireland, Spain and Serbia on 21). At this session, CERD also issued 10 letters to the States concerned (Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Kyrgyzstan, Papua New Guinea, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Tanzania and USA), adopted one decision (Côte d’Ivoire) and one statement (Libya) under its Early Warning and Urgent Action procedure.(All letters, decisions und statements made by CERD can be downloaded: Here) In addition, a thematic discussion on discrimination against people of African descent was held on March 7 (Contributions of the panelists and participants can be found at Here) and a general recommendation on the same topic is now being prepared by CERD (further deliberations will be held at its 79th session). Based on our monitoring, this report summarizes the consideration of State reports and concluding observations adopted by CERD at its 78th session. (Due to the difference in working languages, some of the contents may differ from the original or official record of CERD.) Information on individual communications and follow-up procedures examined by the Committee is not included, since it took place in closed meetings. CERD will hold its 79th Session from August 8 to September2, 2011, in Geneva and examine State reports of Albania, Czech Republic, Georgia, Kenya, Kuwait, the Maldives, Malta, Mexico, Paraguay, Ukraine and the UK. Members of CERD are (as of 78th session): Mr. Nourredine AMIR (Algeria); Mr. Alexei AVTONOMOV (Russian Federation); Mr. José Francisco CALI TZAY (Vice-Chairperson, Guatemala); Ms. Anastasia CRICKLEY (Ireland); Ms. Fatimta-Binta Victoria DAH (Vice-Chairperson, Burkina Faso); Mr. Ion DIACONU (Romania); Mr. Kokou Mawuena Ika Kana (Dieudonnè) EWOMSAN (Togo); Mr. Régis de GOUTTES (France); Mr. HUANG Yong'an (China); Mr. Anwar KEMAL (Chairperson, Pakistan); Mr. Dilip LAHIRI (India); Mr. Gün KUT (Turkey); Mr. José Augusto LINDGREN ALVES (Brazil); Mr. Pastor Elias MURILLO MARTINEZ (Colombia); Mr. Chris Maina PETER (Tanzania); Mr. Pierre-Richard PROSPER (Vice-Chairperson, USA); Mr. Waliakoye SAIDOU (Niger); and Mr. Patrick THORNBERRY (UK). (Report by IMADR Geneva Office) Full text in PDF PDF File ]]> tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/un//33.1047 2011-03-25T06:39:55Z 2011-03-25T08:20:00Z

In conjunction with the tenth anniversar...

Click Here) during the 16th session of the Human Rights Council (see below). Despite commitments made under the DDPA, Japan has failed to fully and effectively protect and promote the rights of migrants, including those from its former colonies and their descendants. While there have been many different problems faced by migrants in Japan, one fundamental cause rests with the absence of a law prohibiting racial discrimination and a mechanism securing the implementation of such law, i.e. an independent national human rights committee. Also, Japan has not yet ratified the International Convention of the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. In addition to the legislative failure, the strict immigration law and control over migrants and non-Japanese residents has made it difficult for them to fully exercise their rights as protected under international human rights norms and standards. Some of the current problems pertinent to migrants in Japan have been pointed out by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination last year in its Concluding Observations to Japan’s combined third to sixth periodic reports (under Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24 and 25). Concluding Observations, click here ********************************************************* IMADR Oral Statement, Human Rights Council 16th Session Item 9, General Debate March 22, 2011 Mr. President, Paragraph 26 of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) requests States to promote and protect fully and effectively the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, regardless of their immigration status. IMADR, on behalf of the Solidarity Network with Migrants Japan (SMJ), would like to stress that in many cases, migrants including refugees and asylum seekers are still facing discriminatory practices, xenophobia and intolerance. In many countries, immigration policies are restrictive, rigid and not properly coping with the changing context and actual trends of migration. Furthermore, immigration policies that do not reflect the needs for migrant labor in the country even increase the irregularity of people’s movements and status at the destination, making migrants more and more vulnerable to various human rights abuses, including human trafficking and labor or sexual exploitation. Indeed, there are a lot of migrant workers, especially domestic workers and those in the informal sector, being deprived of their labor rights. Mr. President, In Japan, right wing group have been openly assaulting Korean schools and pupils, tens of adults surrounding and shouting at children. These groups can continue and even escalate their acts without being punished, since there is no legislation in the country that prohibits such racist acts. There is neither an anti-discrimination law nor an independent national human rights institution. A number of migrant trainees and technical interns, who work in Japan through a program designed and facilitated by the State, are deprived of their fundamental rights and freedoms, being exploited and facing slavery- like working and living conditions. In some cases, this program is even used by human traffickers. In 2008, a technical intern from China died of long-term overwork and there are about 30 cases in recent years in which the death of trainees and interns are probably caused by inhumane working conditions. Against this backdrop, we call on the Council to more strongly promote a human rights-based approach towards migration, as well as the ratification and full implementation of the International Convention of the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Regardless of their immigration status, migrants are all human beings and their human rights must be equally promoted and protected. Further, we request that all the States present here provide sufficient assistance to and cooperate with relevant stakeholders such as NGOs or trade unions working with migrants for the promotion and protection of their human rights. Thank you, Mr. President ]]> tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/un//33.1046 2011-03-25T06:24:17Z 2011-03-25T08:21:40Z

On March 7, 2011 the Violence is Not Our...

PDF file ]]> tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/un//33.1011 2011-01-24T06:33:01Z 2011-03-15T07:01:36Z

[PDF]. The congress was organized by the Spanish Society for International Human Rights Law in collaboration with Forum 2010 on Peace Education, the World Council of Churches and the Institute for Peace Studies (Alexandria, Egypt) and under the co-sponsorship of more than a dozen civil society organizations and institutions, including IMADR [See chart]. In fact, IMADR has been closely associated with the whole project, as well as with the Santiago Congress. IMADR Vice-President Kinhide Mushakoji was one of the members of the International Drafting Committee that adopted in early June, 2010, the Barcelona Declaration of the Human Right to Peace, which in turn served as a basis for the Santiago Declaration. At the Santiago Congress itself, IMADR Vice-President Mario Yutzis was one of the rapporteurs and speakers, and Theo van Boven, member of IMADR Board of Directors, acted as the Chairperson of the congress and was also one of the speakers. This article will briefly review the preparatory process leading to the Santiago Declaration, briefly describe the contents of the Declaration itself, and, finally, offer some observations about its implementation and the prospects of follow-up in the United Nations. Preparatory Process As is extensively reflected in the resolution by which the Santiago Declaration was approved by consensus, a long series of meetings and consultations took place in all parts of the world so as to create a global constituency in support of the human right to peace. In this process, a good deal of standard-setting work was performed under the leadership of the Spanish Society for International Human Rights Law with the cooperation of independent experts from a variety of legal, educational and cultural backgrounds, thus underpinning the normative nature and quality of an emerging instrument on the human right to peace. Successive stages were the Luarca Declaration (October 2006), the Bilbao Declaration (February 2010), the Barcelona Declaration (June 2010) and, ultimately, the Santiago Declaration on the Human Right to Peace. The Santiago Declaration is to be appreciated as the outcome of global consultations, reflecting widely shared aspirations by broad sectors of national and international society, with due account of the principles relating to peace and security, as well as justice enunciated by the United Nations, UNESCO and numerous other organs of international society. Contents of the Santiago Declaration Broadly speaking, the preamble of the Santiago Declaration on the Human Right to Peace performs three functions. First, it refers quite extensively to historical underpinnings pertaining to United Nations documents that are relevant to the right to peace. Second, it seeks to establish a legal basis by references to the UN Charter, international treaties and general principles of international law. Third, it provides guidance as to basic components of the human right to peace, such as the need for its codification and progressive development, the nature and implications of peace, the responsibilities of all relevant actors, the linkages with other collective and individual human rights, and the role of education and a culture of peace. It would go beyond the scope of this article to discuss at length the substantive part of the Santiago Declaration. Therefore, only the titles of the successive articles will be mentioned. There are two sections: Section A on Rights and Section B on Obligations. The rights covered are the following: Rights holders and duty holders (Article 1), Right to education on and for peace and all other human rights (Article 2), Right to human security and to live in a safe and healthy environment (Article 3), Right to development and to a sustainable environment (Article 4), Right to disobedience and to conscientious objection (Article 5), Right to resist and oppose oppression (Article 6), Right to disarmament (Article 7), Right to freedom of thought, opinion, expression, conscience and religion (Article 8), Right to refugee status (Article 9), Right to emigrate and to participate (Article 10), Rights of all victims (Article 11), and Groups in situations of vulnerability (Article 12). In Section B, the Obligations for the realization of the human right to peace are listed in eight paragraphs (Article 13). The Implementation of the Declaration While it is envisaged that the Santiago Declaration will constitute a basis for an international instrument to be adopted by the United Nations, the International Congress agreed that, in the meantime, an implementation mechanism should be established as a means to make the Santiago Declaration operational on the level of international and national civil society. To that effect, the International Congress decided in a separate resolution to approve the Statutes of the International Observatory of the Human Right to Peace (IOHRP). This mechanism is to be established within the Spanish Society for International Human Rights Law and will begin its work in the early part of this year. Its functions include the organization of or participation in courses, meetings, fora, workshops and other international activities aiming at the promotion and protection of the human right to peace. The functions also include the provision of legal advice and the facilitation of access to justice for victims of violations of the human right to peace, as well as training of the principles of the human right to peace. The International Observatory will also seek to contribute to the peaceful settlement of disputes through the implementation of the human right to peace. Among the objectives of the International Observatory is the adoption by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of the Human Right to Peace, taking into account the Santiago Declaration and its preparatory work. Follow-up in the United Nations The right of peoples to peace figures now on the agenda of the United Nations Human Rights Council. At the request of the Council, the Office of the United High Commissioner for Human Rights convened in December 2009 a workshop on the right of peoples to peace in order to: (a) further clarify the content and the scope of this right; (b) propose measures that raise awareness of the importance of realizing this right; and (c) suggest concrete actions to mobilize States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations in the promotion of the right of peoples to peace. Among the experts invited to participate in the workshop was Mario Yutzis. (see PDF) The report of the workshop is included in the documentation of the Human Rights Council (UN doc. A/HRC/14/38). Thereupon, the Council adopted an elaborate resolution on the promotion of the right of peoples to peace (HRC res. 14/3, dated June 17, 2010), in which it requested its Advisory Committee to prepare, in consultation with Member States, civil society, academia and all relevant stakeholders, a draft declaration on the right of peoples to peace. Against this background, it was extremely useful that members of the drafting group of the Advisory Committee were present at the International Congress at Santiago de Compostella and participated in the deliberations. In the meantime, after the closure of the Santiago Congress, the drafting group of the Advisory Committee presented a very substantive and interesting progress report on the right of peoples to peace (UN doc. A/HRC/AC/6/CRP 3, dated December 22, 2010). A basic gap that will have to be bridged is of a conceptual and political nature. The UN Human Rights Council refers consistently to the right of peoples to peace whereas the Santiago Declaration and its predecessor texts define and describe the human right to peace. This raises the question of the individual versus the collective nature of the right to peace. Are the two approaches compatible inasmuch as other UN instruments of a composite nature, such as the Declaration on the Right to Development, which signifies both collective and individual components? An additional complexity, largely of a political nature and reminiscent of Cold War sensitivities, is the position of Western governments, as well as Japan, which for the time being have disassociated themselves in the UN Human Rights Council from the right to peace. Much work is still ahead to find common ground. As is stated in the last preambular paragraph of the Santiago Declaration “it is urgent and necessary that all States recognize peace as a human right and that they ensure its enjoyment by all persons under their jurisdiction, without any distinction.” In conclusion Pending decisive steps by the United Nations with a view to the enunciation and realization of the human right to peace, it is incumbent on all sectors of civil society to go ahead on the basis of the Santiago Declaration of the Human Right to Peace. IMADR could take its share in such activities in the light of the challenging memorandum on the right to peace, recently conceptualized and circulated by Professor Mushakoji so as to stimulate further discussion and reflection within IMADR and beyond. Mario Workshop PDF File Speech by Theo van Boven PDF File (Report by Theo van Boven and Mario Yutzis IMADR Board Members)]]> tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/un//33.1014 2011-01-24T05:09:00Z 2011-03-15T07:03:03Z

In honor of Human Rights Day on December...

Q&A Session [PDF file] (by Jade Johnston IMADR intern in Geneva) ]]> tag:www.imadr.org,2010:/un//33.995 2010-12-22T02:42:00Z 2011-01-24T05:31:09Z

IMADR Challenges, good practices and opportunities in investigating cases of violence against women.

Challenges, good practices and opportunities in the prosecution of violence against women and punishment of perpetrators.

Challenges, good practices and opportunities regarding remedy and reparation for women subjected to violence.

Challenges, good practices and opportunities in the prevention of violence against women.

Challenges, good practices and opportunities in the protection of women subjected to violence.

Detailed information on each panel discussion can be found HERE.[PDF file] Documents [PDF] ]]> tag:www.imadr.org,2010:/un//33.983 2010-12-01T07:05:23Z 2011-01-14T01:59:23Z

IMADR For two weeks from October 11 to 22, 2010, the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action (DDPA) convened for the 8th time. Under the guidance of the Chairperson, Djibouti’s Ambassador Mohamed-Siad Doualeh, the Working Group: 1)Adopted conclusions and recommendations on the Protection of Children, Migration, and Employment; 2)Solicited an update from the OHCHR on the progress of the recommendations adopted at the 7th working group session, followed by several member state’s individual updates on the implementation of the DDPA in their respective countries; 3)Made recommendations for the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration, which will take place in September 2011; and 4)Heard panelists speak on the elimination of structural discrimination and then issued a set of conclusions on the topic. The Working Group spent the first four days in debates over the conclusions and recommendations on the Protection of Children, Migration, and Employment. The main participants were the EU (including individual delegations from France, Greece, and Italy); the African group (led by Nigeria), and the Group of Latin America and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC) (led by Mexico and Brazil). Progress was very slow over this period. The EU seemingly maintained a spirit of non-cooperation throughout, refusing to compromise in the name of progress, even when called in line by the Chairperson. The OHCHR reported on its continued commitment to the implementation of the Durban Declaration, reporting that it is currently in the process of building an anti-discrimination website database that will provide logistical support to all stakeholders and encourage best practices. In this regard, the Working Group encouraged states and all relevant stakeholders to submit information to the OHCHR to help build the database. The Working Group was also charged with the task of planning the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the DDPA. There was a heightened spirit of collaboration here, and the Working Group agreed to hold a one-day commemoration of the DDPA during the high-level segment of the 66th General Assembly in 2011. The Working Group further encouraged member states to initiate national campaigns to widely disseminate materials on the DDPA, as well as special commemorative events to increase the DDPA’s visibility. All member states agreed that the 10th anniversary should be a time for high-visibility events to promote positive measures to combat racism and discrimination. The Working Group heard a wide-range of independent experts speak on structural discrimination. The panelists provided definitions of structural discrimination, made recommendations on combating it, and highlighted specific legislation being used to eliminate it. The Working Group consequently recommended that states develop national actions plans to combat discrimination, and strongly suggested the implementation of affirmative and positive measures. (report by IMADR Geneva Office) tag:www.imadr.org,2010:/un//33.976 2010-11-24T08:39:47Z 2011-03-15T07:00:49Z

On September 13, 2010, a side event entitled “The Rights and Guarantees of Internally Displaced Children in Armed Conflict” was organized to discuss the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG)’s Working Paper N° 2 on Children in Armed Conflict. The panel consisted of five members, including Erin Mooney, co-author of the Working Paper; Alice Farmer (Internally Displaced Monitoring Centre); Kristin Barstad (ICRC); Christine Knudsen (UNICEF); and Volker Türk (UNHCR); and was chaired by Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) for Children in Armed Conflict Radhika Coomaraswamy. The Working Paper was inspired by the SRSG’s visits to conflict areas where she met with children in camps for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and realized that it was necessary to formulate principles to ensure the protection of children’s rights. The Office of the SRSG first brought the Rights and Guarantees of Internally Displaced Children before the Human Rights Council (HRC) in 2009, after which Coomaraswamy included them in her report to the General Assembly. The General Assembly endorsed the principles in its resolution on the Protection of and Assistance to Internally Displaced Populations, (A/Res/64/162.) The Working Paper that the panelists came together to discuss “outlines these rights and guarantees, placing them in a real life context while explaining the legal basis for their formulation.”1 The panelists wished to convey that the paper should serve as an advocacy tool to raise awareness and help create a common approach and standard in IDP camps to ensure that children are protected. It is clear that among IDPs, children are the most vulnerable and face the greatest risks. Erin Mooney began the discussion by stating that there are 1.5 million children worldwide who have been displaced. With so many conflict areas around the world, it is common that in the chaos of flight, parents lose their children, and sometimes these children are too young to know their names or where they are from. Once separated from their parents, they are subject to attack and abuse, at risk of being trafficked, sexually exploited, illegally adopted, subject to forced labor, or recruited to become child soldiers. The recruitment of children to become soldiers was one of the gravest concerns during the discussion; Farmer explained that there was a clear nexus between the displacement and recruitment of children. She said that people were often displaced because of the threat of recruitment, but once displaced, they only became more vulnerable to it. She attributed this to the fact that IDP camps often remain close to conflict areas, and conditions in the camps are very poor, with no or limited access to basic needs, no protection, and no access to schools or activities to keep children occupied. Barstad described the camps as a perfect recruiting ground because children are often “hungry, angry, and unaccompanied.” All these factors, coupled with the boredom that Coomaraswamy had heard children complaining of at camps, increase their vulnerability exponentially. Access to education was a prominent aspect of the discussion in reducing IDP children’s vulnerability. Knudsen believed that access to education would not only reduce vulnerability, but also provide for a better future and serve as a way to enforce peace. She was, however, concerned that several countries do not provide IDP children with access to education, and in the case of those that do, it is often inadequate. She described the increasing trend of schools and learning spaces being targeted, resulting in frequent attacks of teachers and students. There is also a problem of lack of infrastructure in many places, and where such infrastructure does exist, its location often forces teachers and students to face unsafe routes, minefields or fall victim to sexual violence, causing them to be too afraid to attend school. Knudsen stressed the need for schools to be treated as “zones of peace and safe spaces,” and regretted that education is not a priority under International Humanitarian Law, although schools are protected under it. She also said that there was momentum in the Security Council to reduce such attacks. She called for donors to view education as a priority for stopping conflict, as opposed to the current view of it as a secondary need. She said that small progress had been made in this regard, but that donors did not quite incorporate this as a primary need, and she therefore wished to establish clear principles on need-based donor practices. Türk raised the issue of the loss of documentation, which he attributed to being a key issue in protection, and said that other risks often arise from children having no identification. He stressed that documentation needs to be secured so that children do not end up stateless. This concern was also relevant to the discussion on education, where Farmer and Knudsen described how displaced children are often removed from their schools and have no documents as a result, such as proof of completion or birth certificates to enroll elsewhere. Türk continued with his concern of displaced children becoming “invisible,” and highlighted the connection between the IDP situation and the refugee context. He described the “treacherous journeys” children are forced to take, and said that he felt they are being persecuted, yet despite their persecution, they aare not being given attention in the asylum process. Türk emphasized that if the issue of displacement is not addressed, it will be a seed for future conflict, because displacement leads to stigmatization and frustrations that are passed from generation to generation. Displacement is often seen as a temporary interruption, but the truth, as stated by several panelists, is that people are being displaced for periods of 20 years. This can lead to parents passing their hostilities and frustrations on to their children, and these children, according to Türk, becoming “the fighters of the future.” In conclusion, each panelist was asked to convey a final message. Türk began by saying that in child protection, partnership is a crucial aspect and that it is key to continue and reinforce these to see how connections and inter-linkages can be made. Knudsen focused on the Millennium Development Goals, asserting that they cannot be achieved without talking about children in conflict, and that it is everyone’s responsibility to advocate for these children. Barstad addressed labeling in her closing statement, saying that it is sometimes helpful to label groups, but that it cab also be counter-productive, so she wanted to remind people that when addressing children (she used the example of child soldiers), it is important to keep other children in mind as well, so as not to overlook them because they are not included in the labeled group. Farmer kept her message short by simply saying that all children have rights, but being displaced effects how they are realized. Mooney concluded the meeting by asserting that if the differential context of children is not examined, then they are not being protected. Further, she said that, “[w]e are not protecting IDPs, if we are not looking at the children in this situation.” Mooney ended by reminding everyone present that children and youth need to be reached out to more to remedy the situation because they have coping mechanisms and strategies, and highlighted their right to participate, stressing that they are not just passive actors. * Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children in Armed Conflict, Working Paper No. 2: The Rights and Guarantees of Internally Displaced Children in Armed Conflict, Working Paper, United Nations (New York: United Nations, 2010). (Report by IMADR Geneva Office) tag:www.imadr.org,2010:/un//33.940 2010-10-20T14:12:21Z 2011-01-14T02:02:24Z

The Committee on Elimination of Racial D...

IMADR The Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) had its 77th session from 2 to 27 August 2010 in Geneva, Switzerland. here [PDF 180kb]. Summary of the CERD meeting with NGOs and IMADR's input can be found here: Summary of the CERD meeting with NGOs [PDF 45kb] IMADR's input [PDF 69kb] ]]> tag:www.imadr.org,2010:/un//33.936 2010-10-01T11:01:30Z 2010-11-15T04:28:20Z

During the 15 Human Rights Council (from...

IMADR During the 15 Human Rights Council (from 13 September to 1 October 2010) IMADR presented two oral statements: one on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka (item 2 and 3, General Debate); and the other on the situation of Roma people (item 9, Interactive Dialogue with SR racism). IMADR's oral statement on Sri Lanka IMADR's oral statement on Roma people ]]> tag:www.imadr.org,2010:/un//33.903 2010-06-21T16:32:01Z 2010-11-15T04:27:25Z

During the 14 HRC (from 31 May to 18 Jun...

IMADR During the 14 HRC (from 31 May to 18 June 2010), IMADR prepared three oral statements. Two of them were orally presented during: 1) Clustered Interactive Dialogue with WG on disappearances under item 3 and 2) General Debate under item 9. One was prepared for the clustered ID with SR on trafficking, but could not orally presented due to the limited number of NGO speakers being allowed to take the floor during the ID. IMADR's statement item 3 ID on disappearacnes IMADR's statement item 9 General Debate on Discrimination based on Work and Descent and IDP issue in Sri Lanka IMADR's statement item 3 ID on Trafficking in persons (could not be orally presented)]]> tag:www.imadr.org,2009:/un//33.830 2009-10-21T02:56:22Z 2009-10-21T03:06:32Z

tag:www.imadr.org,2009:/un//33.780 2009-05-07T09:29:51Z 2009-10-27T09:39:47Z

The UN organized the Durban Review Conference from April 20-24, 2009 in Geneva, with the aim of reviewing and evaluating the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action (DDPA) adopted at the Durban Conference (WCAR) in 2001. IMADR made an oral intervention at the plenary session, issued a statement, and organized a side event on the theme of “discrimination based on work and descent.”

From April 20 to 24, 2009, the United Nations organized the Durban Review Conference in Geneva, Switzerland. The Conference aimed to review and evaluate the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action (DDPA) adopted at the Durban Conference (WCAR) in 2001. here]]>