ICERD AND ITS MONITORING BODY tion, the Committee requests that states parties report fully on legislation on foreigners and its implementation.7 The Committee is also of the view that the Convention must not be interpreted as reducing the rights and freedoms for everyone recognized in other instruments, especially the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This affirmation is also in line with the GA s resolution 40/144 of 13 December 1985, which recognizes that the protection of human rights should also be ensured for non-citizens. The exception of Article 1.2 rather applies to positions and situations where the distinction between citizens and non-citizens is functional, such as in case of granting certain political rights and access to certain public offices. It should be noted that the Convention covers acts whose results might unintentionally lead to discrimination, as reflected in Article 1.1 which refers to purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing (italics added). An example is Switzerland s recently abolished three-circle immigration policy, which classified foreigners on the basis of their national origin. The Government argued, when the initial report of Switzerland was considered by CERD in March 1998, that its immigration policy was in no way intended to be racially discriminatory.8 However, the Committee considered the concept and effect of this policy to be stigmatizing and discriminatory, and contrary to the principles and the provisions of the Convention.9 CERD reaffirmed this point in its General Recommendation XIV (42) when it stated that a distinction is contrary to the Convention if it has either the purpose or the effect of impairing particular rights and freedoms . Moreover, in view of achieving not only de jure racial equality but also de facto equality, Article 1.4 of the Convention allows for special measures such as affirmative action (or positive discrimination) for the benefit of racially or ethnically disadvantaged groups or individuals. They are considered legitimate on the condition that: Article 2 —The obligation to eliminate discrimination and promote understanding Under Article 2.1, states parties have the obligation not only to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, do not engage in any practice of racial discrimination, but also to take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws or regulations which in effect create or maintain racial discrimination. Moreover, they are obliged to prohibit and bring to an end racial discrimination by any individuals or organizations. They should also encourage inclusive multi-racial organizations. In terms of its Article 2.1, therefore, the Convention makes it clear that the prohibition of racial discrimination applies not only to the public sector, but also to individuals and groups or organizations in, for example, matters of education and training, employment, health services, housing and participation in cultural activities. It is often noted, however, that many states have not yet taken sufficient action to prohibit discrimination in these fields. Further, in Article 2.2, the Convention again addresses special [...] measures which should be taken in the social, economic, cultural and other fields, when the circumstances so warrant , to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain disadvantaged racial groups or individuals belonging to them. Under Article 2, it is important that states parties report in detail on existing policies and practices, the functions of public institutions and authorities, and relevant laws and the scope of the legislation in force. Equally important is the description of any special programmes adopted and projects initiated in the reporting states, and how they affect the goal of achieving racial equality among all segments of the population. Recognizing that: such measures do not lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different groups and that they shall cease after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved . the fulfillment of these obligations very much depends on national law enforcement officials who exercise police powers, especially the powers of detention or arrest, and upon whether they are properly informed about the obligations of the Convention , An action is judged contrary to the Convention, however, when it has an unjustifiable disparate impact upon a group distinguished by race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin 10 (see also Article 2.2 of ICERD). the Committee emphasizes in one of its General Recommendations the importance of intensive training for law enforcement officials to ensure that they respect as well as protect human dignity.11 ICERD: A GUIDE FOR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 3