Fifty-ninth session

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 1472nd MEETING

Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,

on Thursday, 2 August 2001, at 3 p.m.

Chairman : Mr. SHERIFIS

later: Mr. FALL

CONTENTS

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS, COMMENTS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION ( continued )

Fifteenth and sixteenth periodic reports of Cyprus

The meeting was called to order at 3.05 p.m.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS, COMMENTS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION (agenda item 5) ( continued )

Fifteenth and sixteenth periodic reports of Cyprus (CERD/C/384/Add.4, HRI/CORE/1/Add.28/Rev.1; supplementary report, document without a symbol distributed at the meeting in English only by the delegation of Cyprus)

At the invitation of the Chairman, the members of the delegation of Cyprus took places at the Committee table .

Mr. Fall took the Chair .

Mr. MARKIDES (Cyprus) said that the supplementary report distributed by his delegation concerned developments since the submission of the fifteenth and sixteenth periodic reports in April 2000 and corrected a number of errors in those reports.

The Republic of Cyprus had a democratic system and presidential form of government based on universal suffrage; the separation of powers was strictly enforced by the Supreme Court, whose members were not ordinarily removable. Acts of executive power were appealable. The Constitution was the supreme law, while international instruments prevailed over domestic law, with the exception of the Constitution. The latter included a separate chapter on fundamental rights and liberties, modelled on the European Convention on Human Rights but affording wider protection of particular rights than the Convention. Article 28 of the Constitution, relating to the principle of the equality of all persons before the law, and article 35 expressly prohibited racial discrimination. Moreover, the Republic of Cyprus, founded in 1960, had ratified various international instruments on human rights, in particular, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which it had ratified in 1967. The country’s laws and the Constitution were supplemented by penal provisions, as mentioned in the fifteenth and sixteenth periodic reports, which were designed to strengthen measures to combat racial discrimination.

The Committee had several occasions, in particular in September 1995 and August 1998 when the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth periodic reports were considered, expressed its strong concerns about the division of the island and the continued occupation of part of its territory following the Turkish invasion of 1974. That situation meant that the provisions of the Convention could not be implemented throughout the entire territory of Cyprus, freedom of movement was restricted along with other fundamental rights of the Cypriot people and the demographic composition was changed; it was also a source of continual tension between the different ethnic communities. In response to the observations made by the Committee in 1995 in which the Government had been asked to monitor the development of the situation resulting from the Turkish occupation, his delegation deplored the fact that it was still not possible to implement the Convention’s provisions in the area which remained illegally occupied by Turkish military forces.

Following an appeal filed by Cyprus against Turkey with the European Court of Human Rights, the Court had almost unanimously condemned Turkey’s refusal to allow displaced Greek Cypriots to return to their homes and to recover their possessions in the occupied area, in violation of their right to property and to a home, protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and article 5 of the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Moreover, the situation of the Greek Cypriots living in the occupied area had hardly improved, despite the claims of the opposing party, as confirmed in paragraphs 309 and 310 of the European Court of Human Rights judgement regarding the discriminatory treatment towards the Greek Cypriot Karpas community in the Turkish zone.

In the Republic of Cyprus there had been isolated incidents of police brutality, particularly against Greek and Turkish prisoners. The Attorney-General had therefore recently been granted extended powers to investigate police conduct, powers that he had already exercised, as noted in the supplementary report. Moreover, a draft text aimed at increasing the criminal liability of the police force could lead to its adoption as law. In general, the Government of Cyprus was combating racial intolerance in various ways, notably by raising public awareness of human rights issues, organizing courses in schools and seminars, and broadcasting special programmes in the media.

He said that, with a view to European Union membership, Cyprus should bring its domestic legislation into line with European law. It was with that precise aim that it had enacted the new law on political refugees mentioned in the periodic and the supplementary reports.

As far as aliens and immigration were concerned, Cyprus remained bound by its Aliens and Immigration Law, which was part of the old colonial legislation, giving the immigration services discretionary power with regard to permits or deportation. The priority now was to draft a new, modern and comprehensive bill on aliens and immigration for submission to Parliament within six months.

On behalf on his Government, he thanked the Committee, whose experience and impartiality he appreciated, for its work in countering racial discrimination worldwide and gave his assurance that its recommendations would be given serious consideration.

Mr. THORNBERRY (Country Rapporteur) recalled that, in its observations and conclusions concerning the previous periodic report of Cyprus, the Committee had been particularly concerned about the demographic development in the occupied part of the island, the slow dissemination of public information about the Convention in the country and the small number of complaints of racial discrimination. The Committee had asked various questions on that matter, which the Government had answered in the report now under consideration.

He welcomed the creation of the National Institution for the Protection of Human Rights, mentioned in paragraph 4 of the report and asked whether particular population groups such as Armenians and Latins, or the Presidential Commissioner for Minorities mentioned in paragraph 128, had been involved in compiling the report. The Committee would find it helpful in future to receive information on the Commissioner’s work, which could usefully be supplemented by official consultation mechanisms such as round tables. in the light of the information provided in paragraphs 80 and 81 of the supplementary report, he wished to know whether non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (para. 132 et seq.) had also been consulted for the purpose of compiling the report.

The delegation of Cyprus had referred to the right of all persons to equality before the law, as established by the Constitution, and the primacy of international treaties over domestic law, while paragraph 27 of the report stated that legislation aimed at implementing the Convention had been enacted. Given that the Committee had not received any communication under article 14 of the Convention, from victims of violations of laws protected by that instrument, the effectiveness of the legislation to heighten public awareness of the principles and objectives of the Convention was not apparent, especially as Cyprus had no specialized body to combat racism.

With regard to the demographic information provided in the report (para. 24) in response to the questions on the demographic composition of the occupied area put by the Committee in its earlier conclusions, he enquired whether the Government had consulted particular sources of information, such as the United Nations peacekeeping forces in Cyprus or NGOs. According to the report, there were 109,000 settlers from Turkey in the occupied area, who would now therefore be more numerous than what might be termed “indigenous” Turkish Cypriots. There had therefore clearly been a major demographic change since 1974 and a massive influx of settlers. He wondered if the delegation could say whether the influx had been spontaneous or whether the settlers had been encouraged to settle down on the island. He asked whether the statistics included the staff of the Turkish armed forces, since the figures he had heard varied according to the source. He also wondered whether, under current Turkish policy, military service in Cyprus carried any right to settle on the island. Aware that in its case against Turkey at the European Commission for Human Rights, the Government of Cyprus had reported the ill-treatment of the Roma in the occupied area, he said that it would be useful for the Committee to know the factual basis of the Government’s information on the Roma in the north of the island.

He was surprised that the report classed Turkish Cypriots, Maronites, Armenians and Latins as “religious groups or communities” (para. 43 (c)), whereas the Maronites were clearly more than a religious group. The description used was even more surprising, considering that Maronites and Armenians were classed as national minorities in the Framework Convention of the Council of Europe for the Protection of National Minorities, to which Cyprus was a party.

Certain problems remained in the field of community identity. Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the report referred, for instance, to the participation of the Greek-Cypriot community, the Turkish-Cypriot community as well as “members of small Cypriot communities” in public life and their representation in the House of Representatives. It was very surprising to learn that the members of smaller Cypriot communities had to join one of the two main communities to be able to actively participate in the country’s political life. He wished to know on what basis small communities were co-opted by either of the two main communities. He also asked what powers were delegated to the special representa ­tives of minority groups and whether minorities indeed exercised the right to “take part in the conduct of public affairs” in accordance with article 5 (c) of the Convention. The Rapporteur also asked the Cypriot delegation to clarify what was meant by “the Latins”. Were they Roman Catholics or could they be defined by non-religious criteria, for example cultural or linguistic criteria, as paragraph 54 of the report suggested?

He also wondered whether the term “minority” was limited to traditional minorities or included new minorities and immigrants, and whether the highly complex provisions mentioned in para ­graph 43 of the report on education also applied to the children of immigrants.

With regard to implementation of article 2 of the Convention, the Rapporteur regretted that the information concerning the protection of individuals against violations in the private sector (para. 56), in particular in the field of employment, was brief. While the supplementary report indicated, in paragraph 95, that a draft law on equality between men and women in the field of employment was under consideration, he nevertheless asked the delegation to state whether there was a law or draft law of that nature against, for example, discrimination on racial grounds. He also asked the delegation to clarify whether measures had been taken to increase trust between communities, which seemed urgent in view of the extremely difficult situation of the Greek Cypriots and the Maronites living in territory controlled by the Turkish authorities.

With regard to implementation of article 4, he welcomed the fact that Cyprus had adopted a number of criminal-law provisions in the field of racial discrimination, as the Committee had recommended in 1998. Consequently, it was no longer necessary, for example, to prove that race constituted the only ground for refusal to provide goods or services. On the other hand, racist motives did not appear to constitute an aggravating circumstance in sentencing.

He also recalled a judgement in which the Supreme Court had rejected an appeal filed by a Turkish Cypriot who claimed (on behalf of the Turkish Cypriot community) the right to vote in elections to the House of Representatives, on the grounds that the Constitution did not uphold any such right (para. 7 of the supplementary report). Given that the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus was a “granted Constitution” whose basic provisions were not open to amendment (para. 25), he wondered whether the situation could be resolved through a new law. He also enquired whether it was indeed against the law for a Turkish Cypriot man to marry a Greek Cypriot woman or for a Turkish Cypriot woman to marry a Greek Cypriot man. Also, had the draft law mentioned in paragraph 93 of the supplementary report, namely the law allowing marriage between a Greek Orthodox and a Muslim of Turkish origin, actually been adopted?

He took it that the implementing regulations for the Refugee Law (para. 47) had not yet been enacted. He also noted that amendments had been made to the Citizenship Law, but wondered whether the naturalization department had any discretionary power in that regard. It seemed that the 1952 Aliens and Immigration Law, under which a foreigner could be detained in custody for eight days before being deported, was to be amended. He asked whether that law was constitutional and whether it distinguished between illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers.

With regard to implementation of article 6 of the Convention, he wished to know whether there was any government agency specifically responsible for gathering information on discrimination. In the absence of an organization specialized in combating racism and intolerance, he asked whether the Ombudsman (para. 32) was able to decide to investigate cases on his own initiative. Was it true that the majority of cases submitted to him concerned foreigners and the immigration services?

He welcomed the establishment of a Complaints Office within the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance (para. 32) to investigate complaints filed by foreign workers, including domestic employees, but wondered to what extent foreign domestic workers were aware of their rights and the remedies available and whether they would dare lodge a complaint before the new committee for investigating disputes between immigrant workers and employers (para. 9 of the supplementary report) without fear of being deported, as their residence permits were linked to their work permits.

In conclusion, Cyprus, with its increasing prosperity on the one hand and exposure to the effects of globalized migration flows on the other, should respond to the concerns of the new communities settling on its territory, although it had recently been a country of emigration with more Turkish Cypriots living in London than in Cyprus. Given that many of the immigrants would eventually settle down and stay in Cyprus, the efforts made to adapt the law to the new situation should be continued. It was important to create policies taking into account both the traditional and the new communities within an integrated strategy based on conscientious implementation of the Convention.

Mr. BOSSUYT thought that the main problem facing the State party resulted from the occupation of part of its territory by Turkish forces, which had led to massive violations of human rights, as shown by two judgements of the European Court of Human Rights.

The positive points to be noted included the fact that, since Cyprus had now made the declaration stipulated in article 14 of the Convention, the Committee would be able to receive and consider communications from persons or groups of persons claiming to be victims of violations by the State of Cyprus of the rights set forth in the Convention; the creation of the National Institution for the Protection of Human Rights; the fact that deportation of foreigners was now subject to judicial control, although further details on the scope of such control should be provided; the adoption of the law on the protection of refugees; the elimination of sexual discrimination in the acquisition of citizenship through marriage; and the compensation of victims of violations of rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. One negative point was the worrying fact that violations of rights set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights concerned Turkish Cypriots only.

Referring to paragraph 57 of the report, he wished to know why a Muslim who was not a Turkish Cypriot or a Christian who was not a Greek Cypriot could not have been employed in the civil service previously and why Turkish Cypriots living in areas controlled by the Government of Cyprus had previously not had the right to vote. He sought clarification on two further matters, namely the extent to which Turkish was the language of instruction at university level and the question whether awarding deterrent damages did not, in fact, constitute a discriminatory measure. Finally, he deplored the law forbidding marriage between an Orthodox and a Muslim, as it was up to the individuals concerned to make their choice without interference by the law.

Mr. de GOUTTES said that the previous report of Cyprus had been considered three years previously, which showed the willingness of the Government to continue its dialogue with the Committee. However, he deplored the persistence of political factors that hampered effective implementation of the Convention in the occupied area of the territory and recalled that the Committee had already expressed its concern on that matter during the previous consideration in August 1998. On the other hand, a number of positive measures indicated that the Government was keen to implement the provisions of the Convention and to act upon the Committee’s recommendations, in particular by adopting laws that made the Convention’s provisions applicable in domestic law as well as Law No. 11 of 1992, which criminalized most of the acts covered by article 4 of the Convention, by amending in 1998 the Citizenship Law to eliminate discrimination between male and female Cypriot citizens, by creating in 1998 the National Institution for the Protection of Human Rights with wide-ranging powers, by establishing a Presidential Commissioner for Minorities and by adopting in 2000 the new Refugees Law. Lastly he noted that the Government of Cyprus intended henceforth to involve NGOs concerned with human rights in the preparation of the State party’s periodical reports.

Mr. BOSSUYT said that, nevertheless, there were two gaps in the report: first, there was no up-to-date information on the ethnic composition of the population, the analysis being based on 1996 figures and, secondly, no examples were given of judicial statistics on complaints, proceedings, judgements or compensation relating to acts of racial discrimination. Those points had already been raised during consideration of the State party’s report in August 1998 and the data in question were necessary for the Committee to be able to assess the situation.

As in 1998, the Committee would surely be surprised not to have received any communications under article 14 of the Convention from persons under Cypriot jurisdiction, which raised the question of whether the population was sufficiently aware of the existence of the procedure. It would therefore be useful for the Committee to be given information on the measures that the Government had taken to distribute the text of the Convention, as well as the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations concerning the previous periodic reports of the Republic.

Mr. VALENCIA RODRÍGUEZ noted with satisfaction that Cyprus had taken into account the conclusions adopted by the Committee after consideration of its previous report and that the report currently under consideration had been prepared by a special committee set up by the recently created National Institution for the Protection of Human Rights. He also welcomed the declaration made by Cyprus under article 14 of the Convention and the amendment to paragraph 6 of article 8.

Implementation of the Convention was particularly important in Cyprus, a country that had seen the passage of many peoples and was now home to two major communities, the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots. Nevertheless, the Committee should again take note of the fact that the division of the Cypriot people, caused by the Turkish invasion in 1974 (para. 7), interfered with implementation of the Convention in certain parts of the territory. He hoped that the joint efforts of other international authorities would yield a prompt solution accommodating the rights and interests of the Cypriot people as a whole.

He welcomed the creation of the National Institution for the Protection of Human Rights, which was a significant step forward (paras. 5, 9, 63 et seq.), and asked whether the steering committee that formed part of the Institution was competent to investigate complaints of racial discrimination and had actually dealt with any such cases. If so, what recommendations had it made? He also wondered whether the handbook on human rights currently being prepared (para. 13) would contain comprehensive information on the Convention and the remedies it offered to alleged victims of racial discrimination. He also wished to be kept informed about the work of the Institution’s two committees.

With regard to the information in the report indicating that international conventions and treaties prevailed over domestic law and could be directly invoked in court, where laws were adopted with a view to their implementation, he asked whether any provisions of the Convention had been invoked in court under Law No. 11 of 1992, which aimed to guarantee the implementation of the Convention in domestic law. He also asked whether the Institution’s implementation committee had formulated recommendations to ensure that domestic legislation was brought into line with the Convention. Also, had the Ombudsman received any complaints of racial discrimination and, if so, how were they handled, and was Cyprus continuing to provide the Committee with information on the important work done by the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation (paras. 36 to 40)?

Noting the existence of legislation against racial discrimination in education (para. 43) he asked whether the non-discriminatory presentation of minority cultures that was mandatory in the textbooks of state schools (para. 44) extended to the books used in private schools. He also noted the numerous measures that had been taken in the education and training sector with regard to human rights (para. 45 et seq.) and asked whether any of the courses or programmes organized under those measures related to the Convention. He also wondered how the aim of primary education, which was to give children proper guidance and assistance without any discrimination relating to ethnic origin or nationality, was pursued in practice and whether children from low-income families were in fact treated equally to other children.

The judicial procedure for compensating victims of racial discrimination appeared to be long and complex (paras. 52 and 53) and ought to be simplified in a way that still permitted compliance with article 6 of the Convention. In that connection, was the National Institution for the Protection of Human Rights able to grant compensation to victims of discrimination? He also wished to know whether the provisions listed in the report on the implementation of article 4 of the Convention (para. 58) had been implemented and whether the public and the legal profession had been duly informed about them.

He emphasized that the State party had taken significant legislative measures to combat abuse of drugs and other harmful substances and protect women and children from violence. He likewise highlighted the important role played by NGOs in the implementation of conventions in general and the preparation of periodic reports to be submitted by the State party to the different treaty bodies, and sought more detailed information on their role in the implementation of the present Convention and in the promotion of public awareness of its provisions.

Ms. McDOUGALL recalled that, in its general recommendation XXV on the sexist aspect of racial discrimination (CERD/C/365/Rev.1), the Committee had requested States parties to provide detailed information on the way in which the Convention was implemented on behalf of women. In that regard, the report gave little information on the situation of women belonging to minority groups, in particular with regard to the exercise of their rights under the Convention. She therefore requested the delegation to provide the information in question, with particular regard to the many women employed in Cyprus as house maids and those who had been victims of the trade in women from Asia and Eastern Europe. She wished to know whether the Ombudsman had handled complaints from women belonging to minority communities and whether the Government had taken measures to ensure that such women were better informed about their rights and the remedies available to them in the event of a violation. She also wondered what positive measures had been taken and what programmes the Government had put in place to resolve the problems encountered by women in such fields as education, employment and economic development.

Mr. DIACONU welcomed the positive measures taken in the field of education by Cyprus on behalf of minorities, including small minorities, to give all children access to primary education irrespective of race, colour, religion, or ethnic group or origin and to provide state assistance to children from different religious groups or communities, such as Turkish Cypriots, Maronites, Armenians and the Latin community to enable them to attend private schools of their choice.

Cyprus had created a system to represent small communities within the legislature through which the members of these communities, in accordance with article 109 of the Constitution, elected their representative in the House of Representatives; the system did not create tension between political parties and small communities since they did not contest for the same seats in Parliament and the seats held by the representatives of small communities were additional to the fixed number of seats established for the House of Representatives.

He welcomed the fact that all the conventions and international instruments applicable in Cyprus had been translated into the official languages, ratified, published in the official Journal and thus incorporated into domestic law. He also welcomed the creation of the National Institution for the Protection of Human Rights as well as the appointment of a Presidential Commissioner for Minorities, both of which would help the Government to implement the Convention. He regretted that the Presidential Commissioner was responsible for the Maronite, Armenian and Latin religious groups only and asked whether his or her powers might not be extended to all minorities rather than just religious minorities.

It was regrettable that the State party had not, to judge by the report under consideration, followed up a suggestion made by the Committee in its concluding observations (CERD/C/304/Add.56) following examination of the previous report, namely the suggestion that the State party transmit to the Committee information on how it had implemented the recommendations made by the Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman) to reform the procedure for employment of foreign housemaids in Cyprus. He also regretted that in the section on the protection of women and children from exploitation, the current periodic report provided information on the situation of children but none at all on the situation of women.

It appeared from paragraph 55 that the European Charter for regional or minority languages, which Cyprus had ratified, had still not come into force. What were the reasons for the delay? With regard to the implementation of article 4 of the Convention, he was pleased to note that Law No. 11 of 1992 on racial discrimination had been amended following a recommendation by the Committee to criminalize all acts likely to cause discrimination, hatred or violence against any person or group of persons because of their racial or ethnic origin or their religion and to establish as criminal offences the expression of insulting ideas against insulting any person or group of persons by reason of their racial or ethnic origin or their religion and the refusal to supply goods or services to any other person for the sole reason of their racial or ethnic origin or their religion, a provision which partly responded to article 5 of the Convention. However, he questioned whether the amended law completely covered the concept of “superiority of one race” referred to in article 4 of the Convention. Moreover, he was concerned about one paragraph in the amended law which punished any person who set up an organization that encouraged any form of propaganda or organized activities with a view to practising racial discrimination or who belonged to such an organization, but it did not prohibit the organizations at fault in accordance with article 4. Cyprus should accordingly review its legislation to bring it into full conformity with article 4.

Mr. PILLAI welcomed the regularity with which Cyprus’ periodic reports were submitted and the fact that it gave NGOs an important role in their compilation. However, he regretted that paragraphs 23 and 24, concerning the breakdown of Cyprus’ population by ethnic group, gave no information about the exercise by different ethnic groups of their rights under the Convention. Concerning action against police officers alleged to have committed offences against members of minorities, he mentioned two cases in which the victims were compensated and the Government became aware of the need to adopt legislative measures to punish those responsible for arresting or placing persons in custody illegally.

He mentioned the 1999 Amnesty International report alleging that Cypriot police had committed serious acts of violence against asylum-seekers held in a detention centre and enquired whether the findings of the open investigation of the case were available.

Mr. YUTZIS wished to obtain statistical data on the geographic distribution of migrant workers in Cyprus, in particular those from the main countries of origin of migrants, their breakdown by sex and the nature of their employment. He asked how many had been allowed into the country since the previous periodic report in 1998 and what was the most common nationality. He wondered what criteria the authorities had used to determine that there was a “shortage of labour” in Cyprus (para. 30), which was a precondition for granting a work permit to a foreign worker. He also asked how many applications for work permits had been rejected and what happened if a foreign national had to renew his or her work permit when there was no shortage of labour.

He noted that the supplementary report provided by the State party appeared to contain the information requested by the Committee during consideration of the previous periodic report, in particular regarding the legislative measures introduced to protect refugees. He nonetheless requested precise information from the delegation concerning the number of complaints filed with the Complaints Office within the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance for violation of the rights of refugees or foreign workers (para. 32) and the number of complaints deemed admissible and awarded a judgement. He asked the delegation to give the Committee additional information on the practical implementation of the Ombudsman’s recommendation that the procedure for hiring foreign domestic workers be reformed.

Mr. ABOUL-NASR said that the situation between the two Cypriot communities appeared to have improved over time. On a recent visit to Cyprus he had seen various signs of an improvement, for instance a change in attitude towards the flags and a sense of Cypriot pride and unity among the population, who seemed committed to preserving the status of Cyprus as an intact and independent entity. He wished to repeat two questions that he had already asked in connection with Cyprus’ previous report: how many foreign armies were stationed in Cyprus and was their presence a source of racial problems?

With regard to mixed or inter-confessional marriage, he welcomed the amendment of the Citizenship Law according an alien spouse of either sex the right to acquire Cypriot citizenship on condition that the couple had lived together as man and wife for two years. He wondered when the law would be considered by the House of Representatives.

Finally, in relation to the sensitive issue of the foreign occupation of Cyprus, he proposed presenting to the United Nations General Assembly a recommendation that it take action to put an end to a situation that had already lasted far too long.

Mr. RECHETOV noted with satisfaction that Cyprus had taken careful account of the Committee’s conclusions upon its consideration of the previous report and had clarified the points raised by the Committee. However, the delegation should provide the Committee with more detailed information on the situation of immigrants on the island, which was attracting ever more foreigners because of its rapid growth, and also on the work headed by the Presidential Commissioner for Minorities to ensure that the provisions of the Convention were implemented more effectively. With regard to the implementation of article 4, he asked for more precise information on violations committed against minorities.

52. In conclusion, he supported the proposal made by Mr. Aboul-Nasr, as it was high time to put an end to the foreign occupation in Cyprus, with its harmful consequences for the island’s population and hence for the work of attaining the objectives of the Convention.

The meeting rose at 5.30 p.m.