A/HRC/15/37/Add.4 56. Finally, the Government affirms that it is doing a great deal to address the disadvantages faced by indigenous Australians, through the NTER as well as through its broader policy agenda on indigenous affairs. VII. Final observations 57. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the comments of the Government on his observations, and is grateful for the spirit of constructive dialogue in which they are offered. The Special Rapporteur considers it useful to make some final observations in light of these comments. 58. As an initial matter, the Special Rapporteur observes that in its response the Government does not specifically express disagreement with the conclusion that the NTER as currently configured is racially discriminatory and incompatible with Australia’s international human rights obligations under the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination and other international instruments. The Government’s recognition of the flawed character of the NTER and the need to bring it in line with Australia’s human rights obligations is an important predicate to its initiatives to reform the NTER. 59. The Government rejects, however, that there has been denial of all of the rights identified by the Special Rapporteur and found in the several international human rights instruments he mentions. It is noteworthy that the Government avoids asserting that none of the rights identified has been infringed and only specifically raises questions as to a few of those rights. 60. Without directly engaging the Government in its focus on particular rights and provisions of international instruments mentioned, and on whether or not each and every one has been violated, the Special Rapporteur stresses that the Government’s position does not undermine his overarching conclusion that the NTER is in several aspects racially discriminatory and hence incompatible with Australia’s human rights obligations. The Government’s focus on particular rights appears to depend on an assessment that erroneously separates the question of impairment of rights from the racial discrimination involved. It is well established that not every Government measure that impairs or limits a human right referenced in an international instrument is a violation of that instrument incurring for the State international responsibility, if the measure is justifiable and nondiscriminatory. However, measures that impair or limit rights and do so in a racially differentiated manner prima facie violate the standard of non-discrimination that is implicit in all human rights norms and that is explicit, inter alia, in the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination. 61. It is not difficult to see how the full enjoyment of the various human rights mentioned in paragraph 16, supra, is undermined by the NTER measures; and, as shown by the Special Rapporteur, supra, paragraph 15, such impairment rests on a distinction based on race. This is so even if in a strict sense each of the cited provisions of the other international instruments, standing alone, is not violated. To hold that the nondiscrimination norm is only infringed when other human rights norms are violated would be to render the non-discrimination norm a redundancy. 62. It is not surprising, thus, that in the end the Government in its response to the Special Rapporteur does not explicitly contest that aspects of the NTER discriminate on the basis of race. Nor does it specifically refute the Special Rapporteur’s conclusion that these aspects fail to qualify as permissible “special measures” under the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination. The Government does argue that “legitimate differential treatment” for particular groups may be permissible under international law in accordance with standards different from those to justify “special measures”. It is remarkable, however, that this 40 GE.10-13887