PART I – WHAT IS ICERD? 1) inability or restricted ability to alter inherited status; 2) socially enforced restrictions on marriage outside the community; 3) private and public segregation, i.e. in housing and education, access to public spaces, places of worship and public sources of food and water; 4) limitation of freedom to renounce inherited occupations or degrading or hazardous work; 5) subjection to debt bondage; 6) subjection to dehumanizing discourses referring to pollution or untouchability; and 7) generalized lack of respect for their human dignity and equality. It can be seen that this General Recommendation has contributed to bringing the issue of descent-based discrimination to light. Indeed, since its issuance the number of cases in which the Committee expresses its concern regarding descent-based discrimination has increased. Examples can be found in the consideration of the State reports of: Mali and Senegal (2002);11 Ghana, Republic of Korea and the UK (2003);12 Nepal, Madagascar and Mauritania (2004);13 Nigeria (2005);14 Yemen (2006, 2011);15 India (2007);16 Ethiopia (2009);17 and Japan (2010).18 Illustration 4: Caste discrimination India maintains the position that discrimination based on caste falls outside the scope of the ICERD Article 1 India maintains the position that ICERD is not applicable to caste discrimination but only to discrimination based and the Convention is not applicable in this case. However, taking note of such argument and after having on race. However, the Committee has adopted and repeatedly expressed the view that the term descent in an extensive exchange of views with the State party, the Committee still “maintains its position expressed in Article 1.1 does not solely refer to race and that the Scheduled Castes fall within the ambit of the Convention;19 general recommendation No. 29” and “reaffirms that discrimination based on the ground of caste is20 fully similar view was also expressed in consideration of state reports of Nepal (2000) and Bangladesh (2001). covered by article 1 of the Convention.”19 A similar view was also expressed in the consideration of the State reports of Nepal (2000) and Bangladesh (2001).20 1.3 Indirect discrimination and de facto discrimination It should be noted that the Convention covers acts where the results might unintentionally lead to discrimination, as reflected in Article 1 (1) which refers to “the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise” of human rights. In its General Recommendation No. 14 (1993), CERD reaffirmed its view on this matter as follows: “A distinction is contrary to the Convention if it has either the purpose or the effect of impairing particular rights and freedoms This is confirmed by the obligation placed upon States parties by article 2, paragraph 1 (c), to nullify any law or practice which has the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination” (para. 1) and “the Committee will acknowledge that particular actions may have varied purposes. In seeking to determine whether an action has an effect contrary to the Convention, it will look to see whether that action has an unjustifiable disparate impact upon a group distinguished by race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin” (para. 2). 11 CERD Annual Report (2002), UN doc. A/57/18, paras. 406, 445 CERD Annual Report (2003), UN doc. A/58/18, paras. 124, 492, 544 13 CERD Annual Report (2004), UN doc. A/59/18, paras. 127, 131, 320, 342 14 CERD Annual Report (2005), UN doc. A/60/18, para. 290 15 CERD Annual Report (2006), UN doc. A/61/18, paras. 442, 445, 449; and CERD Concluding Observations on Yemen (2011), UN doc. CERD/C/YEM/CO/17-18, para. 15 16 CERD Annual Report (2007), UN doc. A/62/18, paras. 166, 167 17 CERD Concluding Observations on Ethiopia (2009), UN doc. CERD/C/ETH/CO/7-16, para. 15 18 CERD Concluding Observations on Japan (2010), UN doc. CERD/C/JPN/CO/3-6 19 UN doc. A/51/18, para. 352; CERD Annual Report (2007), UN doc. A/62/18, para. 166 20 CERD Annual Report (2000) UN doc. A/55/18, para. 294, 297, 299 (Nepal); and CERD Annual Report (2001) UN doc. A/56/18, para. 73 (Bangladesh) 12 3 ICERD & CERD: A GUIDE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS