ICERD AND ITS MONITORING BODY Relevant case – L.K. v. The Netherlands The following is the summary of communication no. 4/1991 (L.K. v. The Netherlands) —one of the cases submitted in accordance with Article 14, the opinion adopted by the Committee, and the follow-up action taken by the state party: L.K., a Moroccan citizen residing in Utrecht, the Netherlands, wished to visit a house for which a lease had been offered to him and his family, but a group of people had gathered in front of the house, shouting, ‘no more foreigners’, and some of them threatened to set fire to the house if L.K. moved in. A petition was then signed by 28 residents saying that the house could not be offered to L.K. L.K. filed a complaint claiming he had been a victim of racial discrimination. Most of the signatories of the petition were questioned, but a few months later, the prosecutor at the District Court of Utrecht informed L.K. that the matter had not been registered as a criminal case with his office because it was not certain if a criminal offence had taken place. L.K.’s counsel then turned to the Appeal Court of Amsterdam asking for an order that a prosecution be filed against the signatories of the petition. This request was refused on public interest grounds, holding that the petition was neither a document of deliberately insulting nature, nor inciting racial discrimination. L.K. filed a complaint to CERD, on the grounds, among others, that the remarks and statements of the residents were racially discriminatory in nature, that the police did not act expeditiously and effectively in the investigation of the case, and that the Court of Appeal had prolonged the proceedings and had relied on incomplete evidence. CERD at its 42nd session in March 1993 decided that the acts of the residents were discriminatory, that the investigation by the police and prosecution was incomplete, and that when threats inciting racial violence are made, especially in public and by a group of people, it is incumbent upon the state to investigate with diligence and expediency. Furthermore, the police and prosecution did not offer effective protection and remedies within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. CERD thus recommended that the state party review its policy and procedure concerning acts of racial violence, and that it provide the applicant with relief commensurate with the moral damage he had suffered. In its 13th periodic report to the Committee,30 the Netherlands Government provided extensive information on new, stricter anti-discrimination guidelines for the police and the public prosecutions department, adding that, in issuing these new guidelines, it had also complied with the relevant recommendations of the Committee in the L.K. case. Moreover, the Government stated that, in consultation with the applicant’s counsel and the applicant, it had provided reasonable compensation.31 states parties to submit periodic reports — or their delay. Various reasons are cited, such as the lack of personnel competent in human rights reporting, and the burden of work in meeting international reporting obligations under an increasing number of human rights instruments. In order to cope with this problem, the Committee decided at its 39th session in 1991 that it would review the implementation of the Convention in cases where a state report is significantly overdue, even in the absence of an up-to-date report, by using the previous state reports as a basis and taking into account other relevant information (this is known as a review procedure ). This measure provides the Committee with a more effective control of the reporting process, since it does not simply have to rely on the state to review the implementation of the Convention. A letter is sent to a state party whose report is overdue by five years, informing it that the review will take place, and later the exact date is communicated; state representatives are invited to attend the meeting. This is intended to encourage dialogue between the state party and the Committee despite the absence of a report, to ensure a minimum level of review of all the states parties. In a good number of instances this procedure prompted states parties to expedite the submission of overdue reports and enabled the Committee to resume the dialogue with these states. Another innovative procedure was introduced at the 45th session of the Committee in 1994, when it decided that preventive measures should be part of its regular agenda. Those measures include early-warning measures and urgent procedures . Annual reports of the Committee provide the following explanations about these preventive measures: Early-warning measures are to be directed at preventing existing problems from escalating into conflicts and can also include confidence-building measures to identify and support whatever strengthens and reinforces racial tolerance, particularly to prevent a resumption of a previous conflict. Criteria for early-warning measures could, for example, include the following situations: lack of an adequate legislative basis for defining and prohibiting all forms of racial discrimination, as provided for in the Convention; inadequate implementation or enforcement mechanisms, including the lack of recourse procedures; presence of pattern of escalating racial hatred and violence, or racist propaganda or appeals to racial intolerance by persons, groups or organizations, notably by elected or other officials; ICERD: A GUIDE FOR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 9