Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Seventy-ninth session

Summary record of the 2107th meeting

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva, on Friday, 19 August 2011, at 10 a.m.

Chairperson:Mr. Kemal

Contents

Tribute to the victims of the terrorist attack on United Nations headquarters in Baghdad on 19 August 2003

Consideration of reports, comments and information submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention (continued)

Eighth and ninth periodic reports of the Czech Republic (continued)

The meeting was called to order at 10.10 a.m.

Tribute to the victims of the terrorist attack on United Nations headquarters in Baghdad on 19 August 2003

The Chairma n invited the members of the Committee to observe a minute of silence in memory of the 22 victims of the attack on United Nations headquarters in Baghdad on 19 August 2003, as well as all United Nations personnel who had lost their lives in the cause of peace.

The members of the Commi ttee observed a minute of s i lence.

Consideration of reports, comments and information submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention (continued)

Eighth and ninth periodic reports of the Czech Republic (continued) (CERD/C/CZE/8-9; CERD/C/CZE/Q/8-9; HRI/CORE/CZE/2010)

At the invitation of the Chairperson, the delegation of the Czech Republic took places at the Committee table.

The Chairperson invited the delegation to proceed with its replies to questions raised by members of the Committee at the previous meeting.

Ms. Baršová (Czech Republic) acknowledged that no human rights organization in the Czech Republic complied fully with the Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (Paris Principles). However, the Czech Republic’s Ombudsman was playing an increasingly prominent role in monitoring human rights. Furthermore, although there were concerns that the country’s complex legislative mechanisms to protect human rights were difficult to understand, legal opinions issued by the Ombudsman helped persons seeking redress and members of the legal profession to interpret anti-discrimination and human rights legislation.

In accordance with the country’s Constitution, Czech law afforded protection to national minorities. Members of national minorities held Czech nationality and had the right to participate in public bodies, to be educated in their mother tongue, and to use that language in official procedures. The number of persons registered by the State as members of a national minority was not the same as the number of residents who shared that same ethnicity. For example, although there was a sizeable Russian national minority in the country, there were also many immigrants from Russia who were not members of that minority. There was, however, a dynamic and close relationship between national minorities and immigrant communities. Furthermore, some immigrant communities, including the Vietnamese community, were well established and the Czech Republic needed to consider granting them national minority status.

Mr. Martínek (Czech Republic) said that the Government Council for Roma Minority Affairs provided guidance on issues related to the integration of the Roma minority. The Council brought together senior members of the Government, including the Prime Minister, and Roma minority experts on integration, Roma public officials and representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working to improve the situation of Roma communities.

Furthermore, Roma coordinators, in close collaboration with Roma advisers in municipalities, were working in all areas of the country to promote integration of the Roma minority into mainstream society. There were approximately 190 Roma advisers and 70 minority committees at the municipal level, as well as 6 minority committees at the regional level. The Government Agency for Social Inclusion also promoted integration through the European Social Fund and fostered local partnerships between municipalities and Roma communities.

An annual report on Roma integration was compiled with input from the Ministry of the Interior and other Ministries and the authorities regularly consulted the Roma minority with a view to better understanding their views and needs.

In their efforts to integrate members of the Roma minority, the authorities were not seeking to assimilate them into mainstream society, but rather improve their access to education and employment, promote their culture and language, and ensure that they did not suffer social exclusion.

Approximately 80,000 of the 200,000 Roma in the Czech Republic lived in areas where they suffered varying degrees of social exclusion. Members of the Roma minority were frequently stigmatized and, inter alia, often had limited access to education and health care, and few opportunities to contribute to political and socio-economic life.

Ms. Baršová (Czech Republic) said that, according to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and as enshrined in the Czech Constitution, every person was free to choose his or her ethnicity. The Czech Republic recognized that some people identified themselves as members of two ethnicities. For example, individuals who identified themselves as belonging to the Roma minority could, at the same time, identify themselves as members of the Czech majority.

Ms. Stromšiková (Czech Republic) said that the Czech Republic would not be taking part in the High-level Meeting of the General Assembly to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, to be held in September 2011. The Czech Government strongly believed that all forms of racial discrimination and intolerance must be opposed and all victims thereof must be afforded the same attention. No country was immune from the scourge of racism. Unfortunately, the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the Durban Review Conference had not maintained that neutrality and had singled out one country for particular criticism.

Furthermore, it was apparent that certain parties sought to promote hidden agendas that were either irrelevant to the fight against racism or could seriously curtail other human rights and fundamental freedoms. That was totally unacceptable to the Czech Republic.

However, the Czech Republic would follow the High-level Meeting closely and believed that its cooperation, inter alia, with the Committee and the Council of Europe underlined its commitment to upholding human rights and fighting racism.

Ms. Kaprová (Czech Republic) said that the Czech Republic strongly opposed racial segregation in education and the placement of children from minorities into separate schools on the basis of their ethnicity. Among other measures, the Education Act had been adopted to promote social inclusion, general access to non-discriminatory education, self-determination and the principle of choice. Efforts were made to ensure that children were placed in an appropriate educational environment, and if children’s educational needs were not being met by mainstream schooling, they were sometimes placed in special classes or schools so that they could be afforded particular attention and educational support.

In line with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, culturally sensitive procedures were used to assess the needs of Roma pupils and place them in the most appropriate learning environment. Teachers received training on how to identify children who required particular attention. Although a number of complaints had been received about the identification of children with learning difficulties, as some parents believed that that constituted a form of discrimination, the Czech Republic was seeking to ensure that all such children were correctly identified and given the support they needed. Furthermore, although they were sometimes placed in special schools, efforts were made to return them to the mainstream school system as quickly as possible.

The Czech Government was aware that Roma children were often incorrectly placed in schools for children with learning difficulties and was enacting legislation designed to prevent mistakes of that kind from occurring.

In accordance with relevant legislation, informed parental consent must be obtained before a child could be placed in a school for pupils with learning difficulties. Czech law set forth the minimum information that must be given to parents to enable them to make an informed decision about their child’s schooling. That information must be provided in simple language that was easily understood. Furthermore, the Ministry of Information was considering whether that information should also be provided in the Roma language so that Roma parents could more easily make an informed decision about their children.

Other relevant provisions included educational programmes to facilitate the smooth transition of socially disadvantaged children, including Roma children, from special schools to mainstream schools. The provisions had been updated and, in 2009, 46 pupils had made that transition. Other measures focused on special support for the enrolment of Roma children in compulsory education.

Special funding existed to support secondary and adult education among the Roma people. In 2010, 880 Roma had received support for their secondary schooling. Universities had programmes and scholarships to support students from Roma backgrounds, also in the context of the Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005–2015.

Ms. Vyžvaldová (Czech Republic) explained the procedure for placing children in care. A request was made to the courts which had to issue a decision within 24 hours. In most cases the application for care was granted.

The Czech Republic had twice been criticized by the European Court of Human Rights for removing children from parental care because of unfavourable social or housing conditions. As a result the Government had adopted a document which included legislative and non-legislative measures for the implementation of the Court’s judgments, in line with the National Action Plan for Vulnerable Children. The Supreme Court had published a statement standardizing the practice of lower courts regarding childcare and making it clear that institutional care could not be imposed for purely economic reasons, while the Constitutional Court had dismissed decisions taken by lower courts which had interfered with parents’ right to raise their children.

Measures had been introduced to unify the procedures followed by the System of Social and Legal Protection of Children. They included intensifying cooperation with families, organizing meetings attended by parents and other interested parties and issuing recommendations on the number of cases that could be handled by each social worker.

The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs published only summarized information about children in institutional care. Their numbers could not be disaggregated on the basis of ethnic origin because of the difficulty in identifying criteria to establish ethnicity. In practice, if social workers considered the factor of a child’s Roma ethnicity to be important, they could include that information on his or her documents. However, that was not a basis for discrimination but only a means to find a suitable foster family.

Ms. Holušová (Czech Republic) said that the Czech Republic had a well-developed structure for arriving migrants, including reception centres, detention facilities and asylum centres. They provided various services such as accommodation, food, health care, counselling and information, and had special arrangements for such groups as women, children and the elderly.

The voluntary return of migrants was regulated by the Foreign National Residence Act. Their average length of stay in the centres was 85 days. Most voluntary returns involved people with false documents or victims of illegal migration.

Conscious of the problem of the exploitation of foreign workers, the authorities subjected employers and employment agencies to very careful scrutiny and provided specialized training to police and judicial officials.

The Czech Republic had developed strategies on policing minorities and on crime prevention. They included measures such as community policing, liaison officers for minorities and marginalized communities, and educational programmes for police officers. Detailed information was available on the website of the Ministry of the Interior.

Ms. Jamborová (Czech Republic) said that the Ministry of the Interior published an annual report on extremism and a policy document on ways to combat it. In the interests of effectiveness, each policy document included an evaluation of the one from the previous year.

The document contemplated such measures as improving cooperation between police and municipalities, and monitoring extremists’ public statements. Prevention was a priority and one project involved police cooperation with an NGO to raise awareness among schoolchildren. Police and judicial personnel received specific training, while a certain number of police officers specialized in extremism and racially motivated crimes. Steps were also being taken to prevent the infiltration of extremists into law enforcement agencies and to combat their activities on the Internet.

According to the police, there were around 1,000 hard-core extremists in the Czech Republic. Some of the leaders had been prosecuted, with the result that the number of public gatherings of right-wing extremists had decreased and the structure of neo-Nazi groups had become more fragmented. Just six White Power concerts had been held in the country in 2010.

Less than 0.1 per cent of recorded criminal offences involved extremism. Not all attacks against Roma people were organized by extremist groups; most were carried out by individuals who sometimes, but not always, had links to such groups. The police were very attentive to such crimes and severe sentences had been imposed on offenders.

The right-wing Workers Party had been dissolved in 2010. Some of its former members had moved to the Workers’ Social Justice Party which, however, had been unsuccessful in recent elections. As to civic associations, according to the Freedom of Assembly Act, they could not be registered if they promoted racial discrimination.

Mr. Hudeček (Czech Republic) said that the new Criminal Code had come into force in 2010. Statistics measuring its impact would only begin to become available from the end of 2011.

Racially motivated wrongdoing, even if not sufficient to justify criminal proceedings, could nonetheless be punished through administrative law. If an incident took place and the police discovered that no criminal offence had been committed, the case could be referred to the local municipality, which could deal with it administratively. Unfortunately, he was unable to supply statistics because no centralized register of such cases existed.

Each local and regional branch of the State Prosecution Service had a prosecutor specializing in hate crimes. Decisions taken by local prosecutors were subject to review by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office.

The Supreme Court had recently issued a judgement in the case of a woman claiming financial compensation for unlawful sterilization. It had found that, although financial compensation was subject to a three-year statute of limitations, the application of such limitations in her particular case would be in contravention of good morals. Case law was not binding in the Czech judicial system, and therefore the impact of the judgement should not be overestimated.

Ms. Slobodová (Czech Republic) said that the Ministry of Health was taking measures to facilitate access to health care for minorities. New legislation was being considered which would lay down the conditions that had to be fulfilled for sterilization to take place, including the need to provide information on the nature of the operation, its permanent consequences and possible risks. The legislation also gave improved protection to patients, including children and legally incapacitated persons, and imposed a time lapse for the indication of consent between being informed and actually expressing agreement.

The provision of health care in the Czech Republic was covered by public health insurance, which was in no way associated with nationality or ethnicity. Health coverage included regular preventive check-ups, especially for women who were entitled to free gynaecological examinations and screening. The Anti-discrimination Act prohibited any form of discrimination in the provision of health care.

In April 2010 the Ministry of Health had published a brochure informing patients about their health rights. It had been widely distributed in socially deprived areas, inter alia with help from the Government Council for Roma Community Affairs.

Medical facilities had been informed of the importance of complying with new legislation and of educating medical personnel in patients’ rights. The Ministry of Health welcomed the Supreme Court ruling and hoped it would solve the problem of sterilizations.

Ms. Grabmüllerová (Czech Republic) said that the Anti-discrimination Act recognized the right to equal treatment and prohibited discrimination in respect of access to goods and services, including housing. Czech housing law was also based on the principle of equality, regardless of racial or ethnic origin. All foreigners enjoyed the same right to rent an apartment. Tenancy was established by a written contract and the parties agreed on the date of termination of the lease. Landlords could terminate a lease solely on the grounds laid down in the Civil Code. A brochure on housing had been published in several different languages.

At the local level, the municipalities were responsible for ensuring acceptable living conditions. However, effective guidance from the central Government was still lacking and new legislation was being drafted to enhance the involvement of municipalities in attending to housing needs, especially on behalf of socially disadvantaged people. The Government had also published brochures on residential segregation, and workshops with local stakeholders, including NGOs, had been organized in several towns.

Housing was financially supported under several State budget programmes, accounting for about 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product. For instance, municipalities received grants for housing construction and the subsidized letting of apartments to socially disadvantaged people. In July 2011 the Government had approved a new housing policy covering the period until 2020.

Ms. Crickley (Country Rapporteur) said that she would welcome further information regarding the terms and conditions governing citizenship and the issues faced by migrant workers and asylum-seekers. She enquired about the type of action taken to ensure that migrants held in different forms of detention did not suffer discrimination.

She wished to hear more about the capacity of the Roma community to ensure that its views were reflected in policymaking. How often had the various bodies dealing with Roma-related issues met in 2010? How were their chairpersons chosen and how much independence did they enjoy? Were any Roma who had completed third-level education involved in their activities?

She asked whether the Agency for Social Inclusion was responsible solely for the implementation of a European Union national action plan on inclusion and whether it would be disbanded when European Union structural funds ran out.

The Committee had received reports concerning the continued existence of an inappropriate farm within the confines of what had formerly been the Lety concentration camp for Roma victims of the Holocaust.

She was somewhat concerned about the situation with respect to educational facilities for the Roma community, which was a problem in many European countries. The delegation had reported on new structures and legislation that would curtail the authorities’ capacity to place Roma children in special classes, but exceptions could apparently be made for bad behaviour. According to the delegation, 46 pupils had moved to mainstream schools in 2009 and 880 pupils had received assistance at the secondary level. She asked whether such support had been mainstreamed and enquired about the increase in Roma children in mainstream education at all three levels during the past four years. The authorities in many European countries tended to claim that Roma children were in alternative schools because their parents had opted for such schooling. In reality, the choices offered to parents were designed in most cases to promote the authorities’ preferred option. She therefore stressed the importance of supporting the right to free and informed choice.

Mr. Saidou commended the activities of the Ombudsman described in the report. He asked whether the Office of the Ombudsman complied with the Paris Principles. If not, he urged the authorities to contact the Sub-Committee on Accreditation and seek the support they required to ensure full compliance.

He enquired about the procedures for interaction between the Minister for Human Rights and the Government Council for Human Rights.

He asked whether the number of offences committed by extremist groups had declined since the entry into force of the new Criminal Code.

Ms. Baršová (Czech Republic) said that the Office of the Minister for Human Rights had been created in 2007 but the Minister had resigned in March 2010. The Government that had assumed power after the elections had decided to transfer the Minister’s portfolio, which included minority issues, the rights of persons with disabilities, gender equality and relations with civil society organizations, to the Office of the Prime Minister.

The Ombudsman’s Office was an independent authority responsible to Parliament rather than to the Executive. It was for the Ombudsman to decide whether the Office should acquire the status of a national human rights institution in accordance with the Paris Principles. The Ombudsman’s portfolio was expanding to include a growing number of human rights issues.

The authorities had discussed at great length whether the Agency for Social Inclusion should be an independent body or form part of a ministry. No final decision had yet been taken. It was currently attached to the Government but enjoyed a measure of independence. It was not intended to be a permanent institution. Once the appropriate structures to address the problem of social exclusion were established at the municipal level, its presence would no longer be necessary.

There were many different categories of migrant. Some were temporary or economic migrants; others planned to stay for a longer period or might have family links in the country. Integration policies targeted not just migrants who planned to remain permanently in the Czech Republic but also those who wished to reside in the country for a relatively long period. The language issue was very important. People were far more willing to accept foreigners if they were able to communicate in the Czech language. The integration centres to be established in all 14 regions under the new integration strategy would all offer a diverse range of language courses to respond to the needs of particular migrants.

She admitted that the drafting of legislation on citizenship to deal with the new situation in Czech society was a slow process. Implementation of the integration concept required special attention to be given to access to nationality. The naturalization rate was still low: only 1 per cent of permanent residents received citizenship annually. However, that situation was likely to change as applicants gradually met the requisite conditions. The prohibition of dual citizenship was a problem because some applicants were unwilling to lose their original citizenship. It was an issue that would be discussed during the drafting of the new legislation.

She regretted that the farm mentioned by Ms. Crickley continued to exist in the Lety camp. The issue was basically a financial one.

Ms. Holušová (Czech Republic) provided Ministry of the Interior statistics on migration. In 2010 there had been over 400,000 foreigners holding residence permits, including about 100,000 permanent residents and over 200,000 long-term residents. The three largest groups were Ukrainians (over 100,000), Slovaks (over 70,000) and Vietnamese (about 60,000). In 2010 citizenship had been granted to more than 900 foreigners. Ukrainians, Poles, Vietnamese and Slovaks accounted for the largest number of citizenship awards.

There were several types of facilities for foreigners. Foreigners seeking international protection first stayed at reception centres, which provided all necessary services such as accommodation, food and social care. During the asylum process they moved to residence centres. Foreigners classified as illegal migrants and awaiting expulsion were held in special detention facilities. There were also integration centres for refugees, who enjoyed the same rights as Czechs, including access to the labour market and to social services. Under the State integration programme, they could also attend language courses and were provided with accommodation services. NGOs were very active in assisting foreigners in settling into Czech society.

Mr. Martínek (Czech Republic) said that Government advisory bodies such as the Government Council for Roma Community Affairs were not intended to be independent. However, the Council’s Statute provided for the inclusion in its membership of Roma with professional expertise or who operated as NGO regional coordinators. The Roma members were appointed by Government decree and all but two were high-school graduates. In 2010 the Council had met only once on account of a change in the Statute and the election of a new Government. However, work at committee level had continued. The Czech Republic had held the office of President of the Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005–2015 and the Roma members of the Council had assisted in drawing up priorities for Roma integration. The Council had also held a meeting in March 2011, during which the Roma members had been particularly active and had discussed urgent issues with the Prime Minister, who was the Chairperson of the Council. The Vice-Chairperson was a member of the Roma minority.

Ms. Kaprová (Czech Republic) said that all stakeholders dealing with Roma issues were very much aware of the sensitivity of the issue of Roma education. Mainstream education was invariably the main choice for students coming from a socially disadvantaged background. They did not fall into the same category as pupils with, for instance, sensory or mental impairments. The regulations stressed that point, as did the recommendation circulated among all professionals in 2009. Progress had also been made in assessment tools, which were now more culture-friendly and catered for students coming from socially different backgrounds. The centres for the support of inclusive education cooperated closely with mainstream schools catering for socially disadvantaged pupils. Career counselling professionals offered guidance to socially disadvantaged students who were completing their compulsory education on how to compete for jobs on the labour market. Additional funding was made available to schools that provided inclusive education for socially disadvantaged pupils.

Mr. Avtonomov asked whether the Ministry of Education planned to issue a circular explaining Decree No. 73/2005 in layman’s terms, particularly to provide guidance on how it should be applied in the case of the Roma.

It would be useful to have a response to the Committee’s 2007 recommendation that the State party should ensure that the notions of Nazi or Communist genocide, hate crimes and racist propaganda should not be confused with that of class struggle in the application of the Criminal Code (CERD/C/CZE/CO/7, para. 9).

Mr. de Gouttes thanked the delegation for its explanation of the State party’s decision not to participate in the High-level Meeting to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and not to adopt a national action plan in line with those international instruments. He asked whether there was not a risk that the State party’s absence could be misinterpreted, particularly as the Czech Republic currently held the Presidency of the Council of the European Union and had recently held the Presidency of the Decade of Roma Inclusion. The Committee had recently adopted its statement for the Meeting, highlighting the positive aspects of the Durban Declaration, which strengthened the Convention and helped the Committee to ensure its implementation. Ultimately, it might be more effective for the State party to participate in the commemoration and take the opportunity to express its criticism during the event.

The Committee was concerned at the rise of extremism and xenophobia, including the increasing popularity of neo-Nazi and other extremist parties in Europe and elsewhere. Since that was a marked tendency in the State party, the Committee would welcome detailed information on that phenomenon in the next periodic report.

Given the importance of ensuring that the decision to place Roma children in special needs education was not influenced by their ethnicity, he wished to know who took that decision. It would be useful to know whether there were any guidelines in that regard and whether the decisions were taken on a case-by-case basis.

He requested additional information on the State party’s strategy to combat trafficking in persons, including the networks that had been sexually exploiting young women from the Roma community and from Brazil, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, Ukraine and Viet Nam.

Mr. Thornberry said it was important that all parents were able to give their informed consent to their children’s placement in schools, since that choice affected children’s future progress through society. He therefore wished to know what package of information was given to Roma parents in that situation and what efforts were made to ensure that the information was impartial and that the parents understood it. He would be interested to know what steps were taken to communicate in a language the parents understood, and in terms that avoided jargon that was inaccessible to the recipients of the information. In order for true consent to be given, the parents needed to understand the benefits and risks of all the choices made. It would therefore be useful to know whether there was a professional protocol in place that set out the parameters of consent when ascertaining the true choices of parents regarding school placement.

Ms. Baršová (Czech Republic) agreed that the Ministry of Education should issue a circular explaining Decree No. 73/2005, which was the Government’s usual practice when adopting new legislation.

A recent report on trafficking in persons had noted a fall in cases of sexual exploitation and an increase in labour exploitation. More detailed information on the sexual exploitation of minority groups would be provided in the next periodic report.

Mr. Hudeček (Czech Republic), replying to Mr. Avtonomov’s question about the Committee’s 2007 recommendation, said that the relevant section of the Criminal Code was entitled “Crimes against humanity”. Owing to his country’s history, the legislator had found it appropriate to address class hatred under the same section as racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred. That did not reflect an attempt to bring politics into the criminal procedure; rather, it was a way of maintaining the country’s historical integrity. That section of the Code listed three separate criminal acts: the foundation of a movement, expressing sympathy for a movement and denying or questioning the Nazi or communist genocide. Class hatred was merely one possible means of identifying a hate crime. The Ministry of Justice would provide the Committee with more detail in writing.

Ms. Kaprová (Czech Republic) said that the standard procedure for the assessment of children prior to placement in special needs education was established in legislation and regulations. It included the parents’ right to comment on the results of the assessment. All such assessments were made on an individual basis, taking a holistic approach that encompassed the child’s general environment. The authorities had the responsibility to inform parents of their right to refuse the results of the assessment, request a new assessment and ask for a new assessment to be conducted by a different agency.

The official responsible for communicating with the parents must do so in a format that was understandable to them. The parents must be informed about issues such as their responsibilities regarding their child’s school attendance as well as the differences between mainstream and special needs education. Under the terms of the national curriculum, teachers were obliged to provide differentiated learning in accordance with the requirements of all pupils, including those with special needs. Parents were informed of that obligation and the key competencies a child should acquire after following the programme for those with special needs. Parents were also given information on how assessments were conducted and the possibility of provision of support in mainstream schools, including teaching assistance and individual education plans for pupils with special educational needs.

Ms. Stromšiková (Czech Republic) said that her Government had already participated in two Durban meetings at which it had witnessed excesses of which it could not approve. On the occasion of the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, it had chosen to express its strong disapproval by not attending. However, her country had never come close to boycotting the Durban process and it continued to participate in the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards. Moreover, the outcome document of the 2009 Durban Review Conference had been negotiated during the Czech Presidency of the European Union.

Ms. Crickley commended the delegation for its engagement with the current dialogue and the State party’s record in fulfilling the reporting guidelines.

While the Committee had been interested to hear about national and regional plans and structures, it remained concerned about their outcome and impact, particularly with regard to its previous concluding observations and the implementation of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of D.H. and others v. Czech Republic.

The Committee was also concerned about the rise of extremism and neo-Nazism in the State party, particularly in the discourse of politicians and political parties.

The situation of the Roma in general and the sterilization of Roma women in particular was a significant issue for the Committee. She welcomed the delegation’s explanations, but urged the State party to redouble its efforts in that regard.

The Czech Republic was one of several countries that were moving from being countries of origin of migrants to being host countries. In that context, she urged the Government to ensure that the rights that had been denied to Czech emigrants were fully available to those who now contributed to the State party’s development.

She urged the State party to draw up a national plan of action against racism, as proposed in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, which would provide a framework in which to coordinate the Government’s efforts to combat racism and racial discrimination.

The meeting rose at 1 p.m.