A/HRC/29/46 prohibit racial discrimination in relation to “the right to liberty and security of person”, outlaw “arbitrary arrest or detention”, and bar deprivation of liberty “except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law” (art. 9 (1)). 27. The Special Rapporteur recalls that a number of United Nations human rights mechanisms have addressed the issue of the use of racial and ethnic profiling in the police, at immigration and border controls and in detention facilities. More specifically, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has made it clear that the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination prohibits States parties from carrying out profiling on the basis of race or ethnicity. In its general recommendation No. 13 on the training of law enforcement officials in the protection of human rights, the Committee recalled the provisions of article 2 of the Convention, which require States parties to ensure that public authorities and institutions do not engage in racial discrimination, and the undertaking by States parties to guarantee the rights, protected under article 5 of the Convention, to equality before the law, without distinction as to race, colour or national or ethnic origin. The Committee also explained that those obligations relied on national law enforcement officers who should be properly informed of their State’s obligations and of the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement officials (see General Assembly resolution 34/169, annex). 28. Furthermore, the Committee reiterated its position on racial and ethnic profiling in its general recommendation No. 31 on the prevention of racial discrimination in the administration and functioning of the criminal justice system. The Committee advised that States should prevent questioning, arrests and searches that are based solely on the physical appearance of a person which exposes the person concerned to greater suspicion. Specifically, the relevant State officials include the police, army personnel, customs authorities, and persons working in airports, penal institutions and social, medical and psychiatric services. The Committee has directly applied these recommendations on racial and ethnic profiling to its evaluations on individual States parties. 29. The Human Rights Committee concluded in 2009 that a case of racial profiling in the context of immigration control constituted discrimination. In that particular case, specifically assessing identity checks for immigration purposes in the light of articles 2 (3) and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Committee considered that: Identity checks carried out for public security or crime prevention purposes in general, or to control illegal migration, serve a legitimate purpose. However, when the authorities carry out such checks, the physical or ethnic characteristics of the people subjected thereto should not by themselves be deemed indicative of their possible illegal presence in the country. Nor should they be carried out in such a way as to target only people with specific physical or ethnic characteristics. To act otherwise would not only negatively affect the dignity of the people concerned, but would also contribute to the spread of xenophobic attitudes in the public at large and would run counter to an effective policy aimed at combating racial discrimination.22 30. Other United Nations mechanisms have also affirmed States’ obligations to eliminate racial and ethnic profiling. In the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, States were explicitly called upon to design, implement and enforce effective measures to eliminate this phenomenon.23 The Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review has regularly reminded States of their obligations to combat racial and ethnic profiling. In 2007, 22 23 Communication No. 1493/2006, Rosalind Williams Lecraft v. Spain, Views adopted on 27 July 2009. See A/CONF.189/12 and Corr.1, chap. I, para. 72. 9