PART III – CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION provisions set forth in ICERD. Moreover, the decision of whether and how to take up alternative reports i.e. information from civil society actors, is entirely up to the Committee members, thus an imperative or adversarial tone should be avoided.
Alternative contacts: NGOs: Alternatively civil society actors may find it useful to contact other civil society actors such as NGOs. Alternative reports jointly prepared by several organizations are often more convincing and make a greater impact. By preparing joint reports, civil society actors can avoid duplicating their work and use their knowledge, materials and resources more effectively and efficiently. Moreover, a comprehensive single report covering various issues can provide CERD members, who have to process a large amount of information in a limited time, with a clearer picture of the country situation; while separate reports dealing with the same issues may confuse experts. Civil society actors can, for example, form coalitions or (temporary) networks and coordinate their work. Coordinating work and sharing information can play a significant role in best utilising available resources and opportunities, while maximising the outcomes of their work. This is not only effective when reporting to the Committee, but in each stage of the reporting cycle e.g. lobbying and briefing CERD in Geneva and for follow-up (ref. below). International NGOs (that have an office in Geneva) who have experience in working with Treaty Bodies can also be of great help to national or local actors in this regard. NHRIs: Although NHRIs do not exist in every country, nor share the same level of independence; they can be a unique partner for civil society actors. NHRIs can formally present their statements, with consent of respective State party, during the consideration of the State report by CERD and may have a separate closed briefing meeting with CERD members. When civil society actors choose to work with NHRIs, they can be a good contact for follow-up activities in a given country. The Government: It often happens that the State delegation does not have data or competent staff available to answer the questions raised by Committee members. In order to facilitate the dialogue between the delegation and the Committee, and in particular to obtain tangible answers from the delegation, it may be useful for civil society actors to inform the delegation of the questions they have recommend the Committee to ask during the consideration of the State report. Parliamentarians: This may be especially useful in States where the government is very sensitive to concerns raised by the legislature. Civil society may contact parliamentarians and indirectly lobby the government. Media: The media can be a valuable partner in raising public awareness about ICERD and CERD in general, and more specifically about the consideration of the state report concerned. If the national media of the country concerned has a correspondent or an office in Geneva or nearby, contacts may be established with both the headquarters in the country and the correspondent. In cases where no such branch exists, it is still worth trying to encourage the national media to send a reporter to Geneva. Organisation of press briefings, conferences or any similar events can be a useful possibility for attracting media attention.
What can we do, if a comprehensive report cannot be prepared? Not all civil society actors have the time and resources to prepare a comprehensive alternative report and this can be a common obstacle especially for civil society actors at the grass-roots level. In such cases, however, it is still encouraged that, civil society actors at least consider submitting information that focuses on key issues and highlights State’s non-compliance or violation of specific articles of ICERD. As stated below, submission of civil society answers to the list of themes is also an option. 28 ICERD & CERD: A GUIDE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS