PART III – CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION have a great impact, nor does submitting an abundance of information without a clear nexus to ICERD result in a concrete outcome. Committee members generally seek specific, reliable and objective information that enables them to genuinely and independently assess the status of the implementation of ICERD in the territory of each State. In order to provide CERD with such information, civil society actors can present: Statistics (description on the methodology of data collection should be included, e.g. how, when, where and by whom data was collected); Results of academic research; Court cases; Official documents issued by authorities; Reliable media reports on specific cases. In order to increase the reliability and objectivity, especially when findings of personal research are presented, cross-reference of information sources is quite useful. For example, “reliable sources said …” may be enough in journalism but not in this case. Any source referred to in the alternative report should be precise, truthful and authentic and allegations should never be made without firm evidence to support them. Comments, decisions, General Recommendations and previous concluding observations adopted by CERD can be also referred to. In a similar vein, alternative reports can include references to reports and comments of: Other Treaty Bodies; UN Human Rights mechanisms e.g. Special Procedures, UPR etc.; NHRIs; Regional institutions; UN specialised agencies such as the ILO As an option, civil society actors can include concrete suggestions for questions and recommendations that CERD members can use in the consideration of the State report concerned. Considering the structure of the alternative report, there will be several possibilities on how to construct it. Major options for effective input are: i. ii. iii. State report oriented In accordance with articles of ICERD Issues oriented The first option is to consider each point of the State report and offer either supplementary or contradictory information. This requires thorough examination of the State report concerned and possibly a lot of time and resources. However, in this way those points or issues which are not properly or at all reflected in the State report can be highlighted. The second option is to collect and present information in accordance with the articles of ICERD. In this way various information and issues can be presented in a more comprehensive way and with clear connection to ICERD. This allows both CERD members and civil society actors to process information more efficiently and effectively, especially when civil society actors have jointly prepared one report or when the state report is not well structured or prepared. Cross-cutting issues and general human rights concerns can of course be included and presented as such e.g. at the beginning of the report. Specific reference to State reports should be made as often as possible so that the comparisons between the State and the alternative reports are more straightforward. The third option is useful for actors who are not able to bring together the necessary resources and/or whose activities are limited in certain fields or areas. A report can be prepared targeting specific issues of concern — like those affecting particular groups, or specific fields such as education, employment or working conditions. However when choosing this option, civil society actors should make it clear how the issues raised relate to specific articles of ICERD, or at least ensure that those issues fall within the scope of ICERD. Regardless of how civil society actors construct their alternative reports, it should always be kept in mind that the Committee is a monitoring body, and is thus concerned with the State party’s implementation of the 27 ICERD & CERD: A GUIDE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS