Human Rights Committee

121st session

Summary record of the 3417th meeting

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva, on Wednesday, 18 October 2017, at 10 a.m.

Chair:Mr. Shany (Vice-Chair)

Contents

Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 40 of the Covenant (continued)

Sixth periodic report of the Dominican Republic (continued)

Mr. Shany (Vice-Chair) took the Chair.

The meeting was called to order at 10.05 a.m.

Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 40 of the Covenant (continued)

Sixth periodic report of the Dominican Republic (continued) (CCPR/C/DOM/6; CCPR/C/DOM/Q/6; and Add.1)

1.At the invitation of the Chair, the delegation of the Dominican Republic took places at the Committee table.

2.Ms. Alcántara (Dominican Republic) said that, as requested, she could provide the Committee with detailed statistics on the number of women elected or appointed to high-level government posts, including in the upper and lower legislative chambers and the judiciary. Three (13.6 per cent) of the country’s cabinet ministers were women; 3 (9.4 per cent) of the country’s senators were women; 49 (27.5 per cent of the members of the lower house were women; 7 (22.6 per cent) of its governors were women; 19 (12 per cent) of its mayors and 139 (88 per cent) of its deputy mayors were women; and 105 (45 per cent) of its judges were women. She also had disaggregated statistics for many other government positions of responsibility. The full statistical table would be provided to the Committee in writing.

3.As part of the Government’s gender mainstreaming and anti-discrimination measures targeting the private sector, the Ministry of Women’s Affairs sought to increase the number of women in high-ranking posts by means of a corporate gender certification programme; to date, two companies had been awarded a gender equality seal under that programme.

4.Ms. Cleveland said that it would be useful to obtain further information on forced labour and labour inspections in the sugar industry, as well as on plans to amend the Criminal Code.

5.As for the issues of deportation and political asylum, she noted that the State party had emphasized the right to due process and would therefore welcome further information on the legal basis for appealing deportation orders and the appeal process itself. In that connection, she would be interested to know how deportees were informed of their rights and how many appeals had actually been brought. Further information would also be useful on the types of procedural guarantees provided to Haitian migrants and the number of appeals brought by such persons.

6.In the light of reports of what were being referred to as “pushbacks” at the country’s borders, she would like to know what measures had been adopted to prevent that practice and how they were enforced. Given that the State party had said that foreign nationals could be detained until such time as they could be deported and that deportation was used only as a last resort, she would like to know what alternatives to detention were provided for in the relevant regulations, how many persons were in detention awaiting deportation, the average length of time that people were detained and the number of persons offered alternatives to detention. She would also appreciate clarification as to whether or not the State party could confirm its earlier statement that no deportations of unaccompanied minors took place, since some reports seemed to indicate otherwise.

7.Concerns had been raised with regard to the effectiveness of the protection afforded to asylum seekers and the assessment of applicants’ entitlement to that status. Could the State party provide information on the legal criteria applied to applications for asylum and refugee status, the number of applications received and the number approved and the number rejected since 2013, and the length of time taken to issue decisions on applications? It would be helpful for the delegation to indicate how the principle of non-refoulement, in line with the Covenant, was reflected in national legislation. The State party had indicated that the Government did not expel or return registered asylum seekers. Further information would be helpful on the registration process and the protection provided to persons who were not registered.

8.She would welcome additional information on the 2015-2020 national action plan on human rights and on the launch of a campaign at entry points to disseminate information on the rights and responsibilities of refugees. Information would be welcome on the training provided to immigration officers, including training on the rights of asylum seekers and the substantive grounds for the provision of international protection. She would be interested to know how many identity documents had been issued since 2012 to asylum seekers and refugees.

9.Clarification on the State party’s position on the issue of statelessness would be appreciated. Although the delegation had said that no cases of statelessness had been registered, external sources estimated that there were approximately 121,000 stateless persons living in the country. There were also reports that persons entitled to Dominican nationality had been registered as foreigners for various reasons. Would the delegation please indicate what measures the State party was taking to implement the 2014 decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which had ruled that the State was obliged to grant its nationality to a child born on its territory if it was unable to establish that the child would be able to obtain the nationality of another State? While the Government’s efforts to mitigate the impact of the 2013 ruling of the Constitutional Court through the implementation of Act No. 169-14 were indeed laudable, it would be useful to know whether any other measures had been taken to restore citizenship to persons born in the Dominican Republic who had been deprived of it and to protect the rights of stateless persons. What steps had been taken to identify and fully recognize such persons and to improve birth registration rates for children born in the Dominican Republic?

10.Ms. Waterval said that it would be helpful to know how many prisons, correctional facilities and rehabilitation centres existed in the country, as well as their capacity. She would like to know whether prison staff were familiar with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and whether an independent supervisory mechanism had been established. She would also appreciate information on any action that had been taken to increase the use of alternative sentencing measures and statistics on the use of such alternatives. It would be useful to know what steps had been taken to improve the living conditions of prisoners in institutions that were still operating under the traditional prison model rather than the newly introduced one and to tackle the problem of prison overcrowding.

11.Further information would be helpful on the status of children born in the Dominican Republic between 18 April 2007 and 26 January 2010 to parents who were undocumented foreign nationals. What criteria were used to issue identification documents to adults who had no birth certificate and what procedures existed for issuing birth certificates to children not born in hospital? As the State party had indicated that cost was one of the most common reasons why families did not register a birth, further information on the fees involved would be welcome.

12.Was there a specific legal prohibition on the use of corporal punishment in all settings? Additional information would be helpful on the status of a bill relating to that issue that was reportedly under consideration by the legislature.

13.Ms. Kran said that further information would be welcome on measures to ensure the independence of the judiciary and prevent interference from any other branch of government. Given that various United Nations treaty bodies had recommended that an independent body should be established to appoint members of the judiciary and assess their performance, she would like to know whether such a body had in fact been set up or if any other measures had been adopted to increase the judiciary’s independence.

14.With regard to measures to combat systemic corruption, she wished to know how many cases had been brought under article 146 of the Constitution, how many of the complainants had used the legal aid provided for under article 177 of the Constitution and in how many cases the court had ruled in favour of the complainant. On a more general note, information would be welcome on the steps taken to combat what was reportedly a widespread culture of bribery and to put an end to impunity, including in cases involving companies such as Odebrecht. Was the State party taking steps to implement the recommendations made by the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption relating to the revision of the Criminal Code and measures to put a stop to the use of bribery and the misappropriation of funds by public officials?

15.Mr. Santos Pais said that he would like to invite the State party to provide information on the measures that had been adopted to protect and assist Dominican victims of trafficking. Were there plans to increase the available budget and expand care facilities for child victims? He would also like to know more about the psychological and reintegration assistance provided to women who returned to the Dominican Republic after having been trafficked abroad for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

16.He would like to invite the delegation to indicate what measures had been taken to ensure that stateless children had access to education by removing the difficulties that had been encountered in enrolling such children in school when they lacked documentation. What measures were being taken to uphold the rights of stateless persons and to guarantee their access to basic services such as health care, including mental health care, and legal assistance? He wished to know whether the State party planned to ratify the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

17.On the issue of persons of Haitian descent, he had taken note of the information provided by the State party concerning Act No. 169-14 on the registration and naturalization of foreigners and of the potential difficulties for persons who had not been properly registered or had been registered but not added to the civil registry.

18.He would be interested to know how many members of Group A — namely persons born between 1929 and 2007 who held State-issued documentation and whose details had been added to the civil registry — had received their identity documents. With regard to members of Group B, namely persons born between 1929 and 2007 whose names did not appear in the civil registry and who were required to register as foreigners and then apply for naturalization, further information would be welcome on the procedures and conditions for obtaining citizenship, as well as the time frames involved. What remedies were available to the tens of thousands of people who remained stateless, according to statistics published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees?

19.Mr. Heyns said that the questions that he had raised the previous day regarding the use of force by the police and the police oversight mechanism had not yet been answered. He would welcome more information on the protective measures adopted to guarantee the safety of journalists and human rights defenders, particularly those working to promote the rights of Haitian migrants and persons of Haitian descent, and on the draft law that would amend Act No. 6132 of 1962. Lastly, he would appreciate a more comprehensive reply to the questions raised in paragraph 21 of the list of issues (CCPR/C/DOM/Q/6) on the right of peaceful assembly.

The meeting was suspended at 10.50 a.m. and resumed at 11.05 a.m.

20.Ms. Abreu de Polanco (Dominican Republic) said that Dominican nationality was granted to all children born in the territory of the Dominican Republic, except children who were born to diplomats accredited to the Dominican Republic or to persons in transit in the country. The State applied both the principle of jus soli and the principle of jus sanguinis.

21.The Constitutional Court had ruled in its judgment No. 168/13 that descendants of migrants in an irregular situation, including undocumented Haitians, had never been eligible for Dominican nationality. Steps had been taken to regularize the status of persons affected by that judgment, as outlined in paragraph 21 of her country’s replies to the list of issues (CCPR/C/DOM/Q/6/Add.1). A child born to a Haitian national in the Dominican Republic was eligible for Haitian nationality under the Haitian Constitution and therefore could not be considered stateless. It should also be noted that all children had access to primary and secondary education, regardless of their migratory status.

22.Mr. Urbáez González (Dominican Republic) said that training for law enforcement officials on the use of force was based on the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Force could be used only if a person’s life was in danger, with due regard for the principles of necessity, legality and proportionality.

23.Two schools had been set up to provide training on international humanitarian law and human rights law to police officers and members of the armed forces. The principles set out in the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials had been incorporated into national legislation in 1982. Criminal offences committed by law enforcement officials fell under the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts and were investigated by the Public Prosecution Service. The departments of internal affairs and inspectorates general of the national police and the armed forces were responsible for oversight of the police and the military. They investigated complaints of misconduct and referred any criminal cases to the local prosecutor’s office. Disciplinary offences, meanwhile, were handled internally and sanctioned in accordance with the applicable laws.

24.Mr. Saladín Selim (Dominican Republic) said that each State had the sovereign power to determine who its nationals were. Both the Dominican Republic and Haiti were parties to the Code of Private International Law, which established that contracting States should apply their own laws when determining a person’s nationality of origin and deciding upon the acquisition or loss of nationality. The same principle was set forth in the modus operandi signed by the Dominican Republic and Haiti in 1939. His country’s refusal to grant Dominican nationality to the children of Haitians in an irregular situation in Dominican territory would not, under any circumstances, lead to statelessness, because the principle of jus sanguinis was enshrined in the Haitian Constitution. Moreover, such persons could benefit from the Dominican National Plan on the Regularization of Foreigners.

25.Unlike many other countries in the Latin American and Caribbean region, the Dominican Republic had opened its doors to Haitian migrants and provided work for them in every sector of the national economy. Those migrants were able to enjoy a better standard of living and to combat poverty in Haiti by sending remittances to their families. The 2012 National Survey on Immigrants had shown that immigrants accounted for 5.4 per cent of the total population and that 87.3 per cent of immigrants were of Haitian origin.

26.Mr. Bautista Tavárez (Dominican Republic) said that forced labour and slavery, including forced labour in the sugar industry, were prohibited by the Constitution and by labour legislation, in accordance with the International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions to which his country was a party. He was not aware of any violations of labour standards in that regard. Freedom of association was enshrined in the Constitution. Employers who were found to have violated the trade union rights of workers were subject to the penalties set forth in the Labour Code.

27.Under the Constitution, all children born in the Dominican Republic must be officially registered. As outlined in paragraphs 21 and 23 of his country’s replies to the list of issues, a birth registration system for children born to foreigners not legally resident in the Dominican Republic had been established pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Central Electoral Board in 2007.

28.By virtue of article 18 of the Constitution, children born in the Dominican Republic to foreigners residing there llegally were eligible for citizenship and could be issued an identity document. In order to register with the Central Electoral Board, all persons needed to hold an identity document or some other proof that they had been born in the Dominican Republic. Documents issued by a church, association or company, or a work permit issued by the migration authorities, were not proof of legal residence. In the cases of children not born in hospital, birth certificates issued by a midwife or a justice of the peace were considered valid documents for purposes of their subsequent inscription in the civil register. Birth registration was free of charge and administrative hurdles had been removed for easier access. The Central Electoral Board had established a birth registration system for children born in the Dominican Republic to non-resident foreign women to ensure that all children were given a name and an identity in a timely manner. There were 65 registration units in maternity hospitals across the country. The Central Electoral Board was also working to provide birth certificates and identity documents to persons deprived of their liberty in order to remedy the problem of underregistration in the prison population.

29.Under Act No. 169-14 of 21 May 2014 on naturalization, no person who at some point had been registered in the civil registry (Group A) had had their citizenship revoked. The Central Electoral Board had used various channels, including national newspapers, its own website and civil registry offices, to publicize the list of some 60,000 persons belonging to that group. The information was readily accessible, and birth certificates and identity documents could be obtained from the relevant institutions. Some 250,000 persons who were not formally registered in the Dominican Republic (Group B) had applied for legal non-immigrant status under the regularization plan. Most applicants had qualified and obtained identity documents that granted them legal residence for two years. Within that period, they were entitled to apply for naturalization. The Ministry of the Interior and Police had extended the deadline for such applications. A third group had obtained identity documents from the Central Electoral Board through procedures other than the regularization plan.

30.Ms. Aguasvivas Soto (Dominican Republic) said that persons subject to deportation orders were given clear information on the reasons for their deportation and the legal remedies available to them in order to appeal the decision. The procedure fully complied with the principles of legality and due process. Decisions regarding deportation were transmitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which in turn informed the respective embassy. The Directorate-General of Migration also worked with the embassy informally to help provide the greatest possible support for the person being deported. Persons awaiting deportation were placed in special detention centres; seven new centres had been set up in 2016. Persons held in those centres had access to interpretation services, and case files could be consulted with the exception of cases involving national security. It was important to point out that persons subject to deportation orders were held in administrative, not criminal, detention. Vulnerable persons such as minors, pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers and older adults could not be deported. The same was true for persons with pending asylum or refugee applications.

31.Migration officials were trained to provide all foreigners entering the country as refugees with information about application procedures; foreigners were also informed about the suspensive effect of such applications in deportation proceedings. In order to strengthen those processes, the Directorate-General of Migration, through its human rights unit, planned to implement an awareness campaign at land border entry points, seaports and airports to inform persons seeking refugee status about their rights and duties. Foreigners were required to register with the National Commission for Refugees (CONARE) within 15 days of their arrival in the country; unregistered foreigners could not be afforded protection. Detention was used only as a last resort. Migration officials were trained in human rights, interrogation techniques, and the recognition and verification of identity documents. Unaccompanied minors were handed over to the National Council for Children and Adolescents (CONANI), which arranged for temporary family placement. It then engaged with its foreign counterparts in order to locate the family in the country of origin and arrange for the minor’s return. If that was not possible, the child or adolescent was sent to the appropriate institution in his or her country of origin. The return of minors to their country of origin was conducted with the assistance of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and monitored by the Directorate-General of Migration.

32.In the Dominican Republic, the legal definitions of asylum seeker and refugee were not identical. Refugees were persons who were being persecuted on grounds of race, religion, nationality, political views or membership in a given social group. The National Commission for Refugees was responsible for processing applications for refugee status; such applications could be filed only from within the national territory. Asylum seekers, on the other hand, were persons subject to political persecution, and decisions on their applications were handed down in the form of executive decrees. Diplomatic asylum had to be requested from outside the Dominican Republic, while territorial asylum could be requested from within its borders. Persons who had been given refugee status were granted temporary residence visas and enjoyed a broad range of civil rights.

33.Ms. Alcántara (Dominican Republic), responding to questions about corruption, said that there was no need to bribe officials in order to obtain medical or other basic public services, identity documents or birth certificates, as those services were provided free of charge in the Dominican Republic. The Government invested heavily in public health services, which were available free of charge to all persons regardless of their nationality or migration status. According to government statistics, over 90 per cent of foreign beneficiaries were Haitian nationals.

34.Ms. Cruz Taveras (Dominican Republic) said that, given the progress made with regard to the process for selecting judges, the criticism coming from civil society in that respect came as a surprise. Since 1994, judges had been selected by an independent body composed of members from different sectors, including elected representatives and members of the opposition. Interviews with potential nominees were broadcast on television; the public had access to information about the candidates and could raise objections to potential nominees.

35.All complaints of corruption lodged with the Public Prosecution Service were duly investigated and followed up. In the recent case of the construction company Odebrecht, 14 officials, including former ministers and legislators, had been brought to trial, had been in prison and had subsequently been subject to other precautionary measures. In order to substantiate the firm commitment of the Public Prosecution Service to following up on all complaints of corruption brought to its attention, she could provide the Committee with statistics on the cases investigated and the sentences that had been handed down. Officials accused of corruption were immediately removed from their positions and brought to trial.

36.The Dominican Republic had 20 correctional and rehabilitation centres, 20 traditional prisons and 11 centres for young offenders. The country had introduced wide-ranging prison reforms and a new prison management model. That model was based on the premise that imprisonment must foster rehabilitation and provide an environment in which people’s dignity and human rights were respected in order to create the best possible conditions for their full reintegration into society. Prison guards and all other staff working within the prison system were trained to observe the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). Prisoners had to be empowered to generate inner change, reintegrate with their families and look forward to returning to a life in liberty where they would be given a second chance. Socially oriented employment programmes within the prisons generated resources that were reinvested in order to maintain the quality of services and facilities. Prison conditions were monitored through random visits by enforcement judges and staff of the human rights unit. In order to remedy the problem of overcrowding, additional facilities would be built in the year ahead. In the country’s traditional prisons, literacy programmes and programmes for persons suffering from tuberculosis or HIV had been introduced.

37.Ms. Cleveland said that she would welcome additional information on the way in which the rights established in migration laws were upheld in practice. Was it true that foreigners were detained for indeterminate periods pending deportation? She would appreciate clarification as to whether or not foreigners not subject to deportation orders might be detained unless they could provide proof of lawful residence in the State party. A State certainly did have the sovereign right to determine the citizenship status of its inhabitants, but that right was, of course, subject to its other international human rights obligations, such as article 24 (3) of the Covenant, which established the right of every child to acquire a nationality. She noted that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights had ruled that the State party’s interpretation of the concept of “foreigners in transit” in such a way as to place persons in that category who had been born to foreign parents who might have been residing in the State party for years constituted discrimination on the basis of migrant status. It could also entail statelessness for persons of Haitian descent who might have lost their entitlement to Haitian citizenship because they had been born in the Dominican Republic.

38.She would like to know the number and names of persons in Group A who had been issued nationality documents under Act No. 169-14. She also wished to know how many had retrieved those documents and what had been done to facilitate receipt for persons living in remote locations. Was it true that persons in Group A who had not picked up their identity documents in time had been denied the right to vote in the most recent elections? She would appreciate further details on the naturalization process for persons belonging to Group B, on the availability of legal remedies in the event of procedural errors and on the outcomes of cases brought before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Was it true that the identity documents issued to persons belonging to Group B did not afford them access to education, employment, social security benefits and other services?

39.With respect to the statement that the State party stood as an example for the treatment of foreign nationals in the Caribbean, she wished to note that significant concern had been expressed by the United Nations, regional human rights bodies and civil society organizations regarding structural discrimination against Haitians and persons of Haitian descent. She would welcome further information about the action being taken by the State party to combat such discrimination. She also wished to learn more about the criteria used to determine whether a child who was born in the Dominican Republic should be registered as a foreigner or as a Dominican national on his or her birth certificate.

40.Mr. Santos Pais said that the key issue of concern was whether persons perceived to be “in transit” were afforded protection by the State party. He would like to know whether there had been straightforward, reliable procedures for the submission of applications for naturalization by members of Group B prior to the deadline of February 2015. He also wished to know whether persons who met all the requirements but who had failed to register prior to the deadline could nonetheless submit an application. How many members of Group A had received identity documents since 2013 and how many were still awaiting approval of their applications?

41.Mr. Saladin Selim (Dominican Republic) said that on 30 September 2017 the Central Electoral Board had published a communiqué concerning Group A on its website that was accessible to the general public and to all countries with an interest in the matter. Act No. 169-14 had created a special regime for persons in Group A who had been born in the Dominican Republic and whose births had not been properly entered in the civil register, and efforts to regularize their registration were ongoing. The Civil Register Directorate had issued the following statistics for September 2016: the regularization of migration status had been authorized for 29,392 persons, who accounted for 48.1 per cent of the total; 27,249 persons, accounting for 44 per cent, had been registered; 3,825 cases, or 6.27 per cent, were subject to further investigation; 556 cases, or 0.91 per cent, were being reviewed; and 27 declarations, or 0.04 per cent, had been invalidated. Information concerning the status of all persons to whom the provisions of Act No. 169-14 applied could be obtained from all official civil registry offices as well as from the Central Electoral Board’s website.

42.A large number of Haitian descendants lacked official Haitian identity documents. The Modernization and Integration of Haiti’s Civil Registry Project was being supported by the Universal Civil Identity Program in the Americas (PUICA) of the Organization of American States. The first stage had been completed in June 2012, and national identity cards had been issued to over 5 million persons. However, an enormous number of Haitians had failed to obtain the requisite documentation and might therefore be considered stateless in their own country. Haiti had suffered a series of humanitarian crises, and no country had shown more solidarity in the wake of the natural disasters than the Dominican Republic.

43.Mr. Tav á rez(Dominican Republic) said that members of Group A who were officially registered automatically acquired the right to vote and were listed in the electoral register once they reached the age of 18 years. During the 2016 elections, the Central Electoral Board had launched a pilot plan designed to provide direct house-to-house assistance for persons with disabilities so that they could exercise their right to vote. As for the naturalization and issuance of identity documents to persons belonging to Group B, there was a voluntary system under which they could complete a number of documents and an application for submission to the Ministry of the Interior and Police, whereupon their applications would be given consideration.

44.Ms. Cruz Taveras (Dominican Republic) said that it was virtually impossible for registered companies operating in the sugar plantations to use child labour. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted by the Ministry of Labour, and the companies were also inspected by international bodies.

45.The return of trafficked Dominican women to their country was undertaken in coordination with the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Migrant Smuggling and Trafficking in Persons. Those women were immediately offered psychological assistance by the Attorney General’s Office and the National Directorate for Victims Services in coordination with civil society organizations. Budgetary support was provided by the Public Prosecution Service and by civil society organizations. A bill providing for a comprehensive system for the protection and care of victims and witnesses and for the necessary budget had been submitted to the Legal Advisory Service of the Office of the President of the Republic.

46.With regard to freedom of expression of human rights defenders and journalists, persons who claimed to be targets of attempts at intimidation were encouraged to file complaints so that the authorities could take action to safeguard their physical integrity and offer them legal protection.

47.Ms. Aguasvivas Soto (Dominican Republic) said that migrants were initially checked to ensure that they had not broken the law and were then taken to an accommodation centre, where a more in-depth review was conducted to determine whether they had entered the country illegally. Once it was found that they had not broken the law, they were released. A foreigner’s deportation was automatically suspended if he or she sought a remedy through formal legal procedures. The duration of detention depended on the proceedings involved. If the person concerned had no documentation, it would be necessary to wait for the embassy to process the case and for the documents to arrive. The maximum period set for the completion of deportation procedures at the border was 48 hours.

48.Ms. Abreu de Polanco (Dominican Republic) said that she wished to express her delegation’s appreciation of the constructive dialogue that had taken place with the Committee. As her Government was committed to working for the good of the Dominican people, it looked forward to receiving the Committee’s concluding observations and recommendations.

49.The Chair said that the State party clearly took its international obligations seriously. It reported regularly and on time, despite significant challenges. He welcomed, in particular, institutional reforms such as the passage of the 2013 Act on Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities and the State party’s ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

50.The Committee’s concerns focused on immigration and nationality issues, including the implementation of Act No. 169-14, the pace of the regularization process and the uncertain status of certain persons belonging to Groups A and B. Other important issues were compliance with non-refoulement obligations, conditions in the sugar cane industry, the use of force by police, and violence against women and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons.

51.He hoped that one of the outcomes of the interactive dialogue would be further progress in devising processes for use by the State party in the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations so that it would be unnecessary to revisit the same issues during the next dialogue with the State party.

The meeting rose at 12.55 p.m.