E/CN.4/2004/21 page 10 49. The observer for France replied that the justice system was not perfect and that much was being done to improve the administration of justice in Martinique. She explained that in France, in the interest of impartiality, judges never served in the region where they were from; that this was a basic principle of the administration of justice throughout the Republic and not limited to Martinique. In Martinique, all French citizens had the right to participate in the drafting of laws. She added that the Working Group was perhaps not the appropriate forum to discuss the colonial system. 50. Mr. Jabbour commented that the issue of jury selection required further attention and study. He also mentioned that it would be useful to hear more about the situation in the Caribbean at future sessions. Mr. Frans stated that structural racism manifested itself in many ways and it was necessary to look in-depth at how to dismantle the system. There was a need for more studies and to listen to more “stories of survival”. 51. The observer for Ethiopia said that it was important to explore the origins of criminal behaviour, which were usually social exclusion and economic marginalization. The question was how to address the origins of criminal behaviour. This matter was often linked to the political will of States, which raised the issue of how to develop the political will of States to deal with these questions. 52. The observer for the Association of World Citizens raised the issue of inter-ethnic violence within prisons and noted the importance of ongoing training to achieve dialogue and resolution. 53. The observer for the African Society of Comparative and International Law said that it was important to discuss the issues of racism in an open forum and that he had learned a great deal. He reiterated that a very small percentage of the population, so called “settlers”, controlled entire social, economic and judicial spheres in Martinique, and the situation was similar in French Guyana and Guadeloupe. 54. The observer for Costa Rica pointed to the importance of this dialogue and of learning about problems in countries other than one’s own. He added that he deeply regretted the “blatant absence” of observers representing certain Member States and that something must be done soon to address this. 55. The observer for Uruguay agreed that the absence of many observer Governments was deplorable, but the most effective means of redressing this was to achieve progress in order to encourage their participation. He outlined two key recommendations arising from the Uruguay-OHCHR workshop on affirmative action: (a) States should ratify international treaties and conventions and accept the competence of international bodies to accept individual petitions; and (b) international law should be expanded to include provisions on new manifestations of racism. 56. The observer for Nigeria raised a point of order, commenting that as discussions were still ongoing, this was not the time to consider specific recommendations or proposals. He agreed that representation by observer Governments was important and that perhaps the Governments that had failed to attend could be contacted and urged to send representatives, as had been done by the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery.