redress for the victim. Often this will be in the form of asking the state to change the law so that a similar violation cannot occur in future, and to provide limited compensation to the victim. Committees request states to submit information to them, within a certain period, informing the committee of the action taken. Decisions of the committees are final; there is no appeal process. The texts of decisions on the merits of a case are made available on the OHCHR website and are published in the committee’s annual report to the General Assembly. Committees will also report to the GA on state action or inaction following a decision. The committees are not courts, so their views are not legally binding on states. However, even though ‘views’ or ‘opinions’ are not judgments in a formal sense, their political and moral value is considerable; ratifying and accepting states wishing to maintain a good reputation globally are likely to comply with the findings. NGO involvement does not end with the decision of the committee. NGOs play an important role in ensuring that a state complies with the decision by publicizing the case domestically and pressuring the government if it is reluctant to implement the decision. ventions that have a particular impact on minorities. Depending on your situation, the CAT jurisprudence may be useful, see: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/8/ jurispr.htm for details. The CEDAW has yet to complete consideration of its first cases. Selected cases of the Human Rights Committee The following selected cases demonstrate some interpretations by the CERD and HRC of provisions in the Con- Relatively few cases concerning minority rights have been dealt with by the HRC. Most cases dealing with minority questions have been submitted by indigenous peoples using the minority rights provision of Article 27. Case law, however, as demonstrated by the examples below, is important and of interest to both minorities and indigenous peoples because it shows the committee’s broad and expansive interpretation of Article 27 of the ICCPR. The full texts of all HRC opinions can be found on the OHCHR website. Sandra Lovelace v. Canada (communication no. 24/1977) concerned an indigenous woman who had been brought up on an Indian reservation. Following her marriage to a non-Indian she left the reservation. Later she divorced and wanted to return to her native community and the reservation. According to Canadian national law, Ms Lovelace lost her status as an Indian on marrying a non-Indian and she consequently lost her right to reside on the reservation. The HRC found that, being a native Indian and being brought up with her community, Ms Lovelace was, regardless of her marriage, to be regarded as a person belonging to a minority falling under the protection of Article 27 of the ICCPR. Article 27 does not explicitly guarantee the right to residence, but the right to residence was considered essential for access to culture and language ‘in community with other members of the group’. The rights to culture and language are well protected under Article 27, and they constitute important components of the right to identity. The committee’s view was that restrictions on the right to residence on a reserve must have a ‘reasonable and objective justification’. They found that denying Ms Lovelace the right to live on the reservation was not ‘reasonable, or necessary to preserve the identity of the tribe’. According to the HRC, denying the right of residency amounted to a violation of her right to identity. Following the HRC decision in this case, Canada amended the Indian Act and the discriminatory provisions were removed. In the case Chief Bernard Ominayak and the Lubicon Band v. Canada (communication no. 167/1984) the applicant was the chief of an Indian band (or people) who lived to a large extent by fishing and hunting. Due to large-scale expropriation of land and degradation of the environment, he claimed that members of the band were denied their right to self-determination and to dispose MINORITY RIGHTS: A GUIDE TO UNITED NATIONS PROCEDURES AND INSTITUTIONS 23 Contrasting state reactions to CERD decisions and recommendations In its decision in the case L.K. v. The Netherlands (for details see below), the CERD recommended that the state party review its policy and procedure concerning acts of racial violence, and that it provide the applicant with relief proportionate to the moral damage suffered. The Netherlands in its 13th periodic report to the CERD provided extensive information on new, stricter anti-discrimination guidelines for the police and public prosecutions department, adding that in issuing these new guidelines, it had also complied with the recommendations of the committee in the L.K. case. They also stated that they had provided reasonable compensation to the applicant following consultations with counsel. In the case of Hagan v. Australia (details below), the committee recommended that the state party remove the offending term from the sign and inform the committee of the action taken. The government of Australia transmitted its reply to the CERD stating that it did not propose to take measures to remove the offending term. The committee wrote to the government expressing its regret over this and hoped that Australia: ‘will reconsider its position in the larger context of dealing with factors contributing to racial discrimination’. The committee are likely to revisit this issue when they consider Australia’s next periodic report.