design of the arrangement. The Settlement was enacted only following the Maori representatives’ report that substantial Maori support for the Settlement existed.’ The HRC found that this broad consultation, while paying attention to the sustainability of Maori fishing activities, meant that the legislation was compatible with Article 27 despite the authors’ claim that they and the majority of their tribes did not agree with the Act. Selected cases of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination The obligations undertaken by states parties in Articles 1–7 of the ICERD may successfully be invoked by minorities under the complaints procedure of Article 14, provided the state concerned has ratified the Convention and expressly accepted the Article 14 procedure. The following CERD cases are interesting and important from a minority rights perspective. For full texts of committee opinions, see the OHCHR website. In A. Yilmaz-Dogan v. the Netherlands (communication no. 1/1984), a Turkish citizen claimed to have been subject to racial discrimination when her employment was terminated. Even though the reasons given for the termination were not discriminatory as such, the CERD found that the employer had taken racial considerations into account when dismissing the applicant. Therefore it was found that the government of the Netherlands had not taken adequate means to enforce the Convention on its territory. The committee suggested that the government use its good offices to secure employment for the applicant if she was not gainfully employed at the time of the decision. In the case, Demba Talibe Diop v. France (communication no. 2/1989), the applicant was a Senegalese citizen living in France. He claimed that France had violated his rights under Article 5 of the ICERD when he was denied a licence to practise law, but the CERD did not find that the provision had been violated, because the refusal was based on Mr Diop’s not having French nationality. According to Article 1, paragraph 2 of the ICERD, distinctions between citizens and non-citizens do not fall under the scope of racial discrimination as defined in Article 1, paragraph 1. In the case L.K. v. the Netherlands (communication no. 4/1991), the author was a Moroccan citizen living in the Netherlands who had been subjected to harassment and insults by a xenophobic mob. He claimed that his rights in Article 4 had been violated and that the authorities had not acted properly according to their obligations under this Article. The CERD found that the threats and actions against the author constituted violations of Article MINORITY RIGHTS: A GUIDE TO UNITED NATIONS PROCEDURES AND INSTITUTIONS 4 and that the authorities had not satisfactorily investigated the incidents, and had not instituted appropriate legal proceedings against the perpetrators. The CERD recommended that the state review its policies and procedures concerning the prosecution of alleged racial discrimination, in light of Article 4 of the Convention. This conclusion by the CERD is significant for minority use of Article 4 as it may help overcome discrimination. The case Hagen v. Australia (communication no. 26/2002) concerned the name of a grandstand in a sports stadium. The ‘ES Nigger Brown Stand’ was named after a local sporting hero in the 1960s, who was nicknamed ‘Nigger Brown’. The name appears on a large sign on the stand. The author complained that the sign was offensive and should be removed. The committee took into account the facts that the sign had been erected in 1960, had not been designed to demean Mr Brown and had been displayed for 40 years without any complaints. While not finding a violation of the Convention, the committee nevertheless found that maintaining the sign now could be considered offensive even if it was not considered offensive in the past. The committee considered that the Convention, as a living instrument, must be interpreted and applied taking into account contemporary circumstances. They recommended that Australia take measures to secure removal of the offending term from the sign. 3.5 Thematic/general discussions The CESCR and CRC hold a ‘day of discussion’ and the CERD holds a ‘thematic discussion’ on a particular issue. The CAT, CEDAW and HRC do not hold thematic or general discussions. The aim of these discussions is to provide an opportunity to develop understanding on noncountry specific issues. They allow for input from different sources (including NGOs) into the work of the committees. They often lead to the committee adopting a General Comment or General Recommendation on that topic. NGOs can propose topics for discussion to sympathetic committee members in an informal manner. The committee as a whole decides the topic for discussion. The extent of NGO involvement in preparations for the discussions varies between committees, with the CRC being the only committee with formal involvement of NGOs. In all cases NGOs, regardless of ECOSOC status, can submit written information to the committee. All NGOs can also make an oral statement during the discussion. NGOs wishing to attend and make statements have to register with the secretariat and may be requested to submit copies of their statement in advance. 25