ICERD AND ITS MONITORING BODY With regard to the content of states reports, the Committee has noted some misconceptions on the part of states parties: ● Some states parties perceive that, since their governments believe that racial discrimination does not exist within their territories, they are not obliged to submit periodic reports. The Committee is of the opinion that discrimination is a phenomenon that is actually or potentially prevalent in all countries, and thus all the states parties have an obligation to be vigilant, and to report on the measures taken to prevent or to combat racial discrimination. ● Some states reports give the impression that if the Convention has become part of the legal order of the country, no further legislative action is necessary. However, the Convention not only requires that legislation prohibits certain acts, but also calls for action in the judiciary and administration, as well as in the fields of culture, education and information. Similarly, a state party does not fulfil its obligations under the Convention simply by condemning racial discrimination in the Constitution of the country.28 ● In certain cases reports fail to include the text of antidiscrimination laws, and relevant case law and practice. To assist states parties in their preparation of reports, CERD has provided them with general guidelines.29 b) Inter-state complaints (Articles 11—13) All the states parties to the Convention recognize the competence of CERD to receive and act on a complaint by one of them that another is not giving effect to the provisions of the Convention (Article 11.1). However, no state party has yet resorted to this procedure, which provides — unless the matter is settled in another way — for the appointment of an ad hoc conciliation commission (Article 12). States are extremely reluctant to use this procedure because it is complicated and time-consuming. If states wish to raise cases of alleged violations or shortcomings in other states, they prefer to use the political fora of the UN, such as the Commission on Human Rights or the GA. To date, no state has ever used the inter-state procedures under any of the UN human rights treaties. a violation of the Convention directly to CERD, provided that the state(s) concerned has (have) made a declaration to recognize CERD s competence under Article 14. It came into operation in 1982 when the 10th of such declarations was made by a state party. The individual or group must have exhausted all local remedies. (Further details of the process, and advice on how to file a complaint, can be found in Part II, section 2 of this manual.) The Convention further provides in its Article 14.2 that any state party which makes a declaration as provided for in para. 1 of the same Article may establish or indicate a national body competent to receive petitions from individuals or groups of individuals who claim to be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in ICERD, and who have exhausted other locally available remedies. Only if petitioners fail to obtain satisfaction from the body indicated may they bring the matter to the Committee s attention. Luxembourg and South Africa are as yet (as at 1 January 2000) the only states parties to have designated a standing committee in accordance with Article 14.2. With regard to the individual communications procedures within the UN human rights mechanisms, Article 14 of ICERD and the practice of the Committee present some special features, which may distinguish this procedure from similar procedures under other human rights instruments. For example, Article 14 allows not only individuals claiming to be victims of a violation but also groups of individuals to file communications. Moreover, the communication is not prevented from being considered while under another procedure of international investigation; and the Committee makes suggestions and recommendations rather than merely expressing views . This procedure should not, however, be confused with the jurisdiction of a court. A judgment of a court is legally binding but suggestions and recommendations of the Committee do not carry the same legal weight. Nevertheless, these suggestions and recommendations are generally considered as authoritative pronouncements of a competent quasi-judicial body and raise the expectation that they are being respected and complied with by the states parties concerned. In this connection, it is important that the media and the general public become aware of cases brought to, and the opinions expressed by, the Committee. C. Further innovative procedures c) Individual communications (Article 14) This procedure for communications allows individuals or groups of individuals to submit their claims as victims of 8 Technically, the Committee has been facing a constant problem that disrupts its work and makes it difficult to carry out its mandate: that is the failure of quite a few ICERD: A GUIDE FOR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS