2 - The second reason is that the CERD is the oldest of the ten Committees Independent of experts or "treaty bodies" existing at the United Nations. Its experience is therefore particularly useful to evoke. In addition, CERD is specifically charged with ensuring the implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted on 21 December 1965 and ratified to date by 177 States. This enables it to play the role of a genuine "global observatory of racial and ethnic discrimination" in all our societies. However, we know how important this task is, the fight against these forms of discrimination constitutes one of the major challenges for safeguarding social cohesion in our contemporary societies, which have become multi-ethnic and multicultural. 3 - The third reason for the interest of CERD General Recommendation No. 31/2005 is that it was drawn up based on a very wide range of information gathered by the Committee on the functioning of justice in all states part of the International Convention which the CERD is responsible for enforcing. This information is based on:  on the one hand, the governmental reports submitted periodically to the Committee and the individual complaints or communications received by the Committee, identifying various dysfunctions or bad practices in the administration of criminal justice;  on the other hand, information provided by other United Nations bodies (in particular the former Sub-Commission on Human Rights and the Special Rapporteurs on contemporary forms of racism), but also regional Protection of human rights (such as the Council of Europe, its European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI);  lastly, the very important contributions made in the CERD of 2005 by several non-governmental organizations, including the Open Society Justice Initiative, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Quaker UN Office, and the FIDH. 4 - A fourth reason for the choice of CERD Recommendation No. 31/2005 is twofold: - A substantive ground: Racial or ethnic discrimination against certain groups or minorities, when manifested in the administration and functioning of justice itself, is a particularly serious violation of the rule of law and the principle of a fair trial, which directly affects persons belonging to groups that the justice system has the task of protecting. The gravity of this infringement is further increased when it comes to criminal justice, which directly affects the freedom of persons, their integrity, their dignity and their reputation. - Contingent or circumstantial reasons: the risks of racial discrimination in the administration and functioning of justice have increased in recent years: