Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

114th session

Summary record of the 3116th meeting

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva, on Friday, 29 November 2024, at 10 a.m.

Chair:Mr. Balcerzak

Contents

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

Combined seventh to ninth periodic reports of Monaco(continued)

The meeting was called to order at 10 a.m.

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

Combined seventh to ninth periodic reports of Monaco (continued) (CERD/C/MCO/7-9; CERD/C/MCO/Q/7-9; CERD/C/MCO/QPR/7-9)

At the invitation of the Chair, the delegation of Monaco joined the meeting.

Ms. Esseneme (Country Rapporteur) said that, under article 32 of the Constitution, foreign nationals enjoyed all the public and private rights in the Principality that were not officially reserved for nationals. In that connection, she wished to know what the word “officially” meant, whether there were rights to which non-nationals were not entitled and, if so, on what basis those rights were denied. She wondered what guarantees were in place to ensure that the Constitution was implemented in a way that did not give rise to injustice and discrimination against non-nationals, particularly in the provision of basic social services. Given that the Supreme Court oversaw the application of the principle of equality before the law and heard appeals against any act that violated that principle, it would be interesting to hear about any acts annulled by the Supreme Court and about the compensation awarded to the victims.

She would like to know what measures the State party had taken to facilitate the integration into society of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers. It would be interesting to know whether any steps were taken to assess the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by non-nationals and whether any mechanism was in place to facilitate family reunification for them. Given that nationals represented only 22.5 per cent of the population, she wondered what measures were taken to ensure that non-nationals had access to basic social services, including social assistance and free education, without discrimination. What mechanisms had been established to ensure that all children of school age were enrolled in school?

It would be useful to know whether access to education was ensured for children whose parents had an irregular migration status and who could not afford to pay school fees. The Committee would welcome information on the status of Bill No. 1036 on the fight against harassment and violence in schools. It would also be grateful to hear whether any cases of harassment on grounds of race or ethnic or national origin had been recorded and had subsequently given rise to the development of the Bill.

She would appreciate information on the medical coverage provided to residents of Monaco who had stopped working and were no longer entitled to health insurance. It would be interesting to know how such persons’ medical coverage differed from that made available to persons with health insurance. The State party provided medical coverage to persons who had lived in the Principality for more than five years and whose total household resources did not exceed a certain threshold. The Committee would like to know what that threshold was and what mechanism was used to determine it. Would the Government consider reducing or abolishing the minimum period of residence that was used to determine eligibility, or establishing an alternative mechanism to reduce inequalities in access to social benefits?

According to the State party, non-nationals who had lived in the Principality for less than five years would not be able to remain in the country if their income was below a certain threshold. That being the case, she wished to know what that threshold was, under what law it had been established and whether persons whose income was below the threshold were deported. What was the guaranteed minimum wage in Monaco?

She wondered what measures had been taken in response to property market pressures to avoid unjustified gaps in access to property among different groups of foreign nationals. Noting that only 1.9 per cent of private sector employees were nationals of Monaco, she wondered what proportion of public sector employees were non-nationals and what measures were taken to ensure that the prioritization of nationals in employment did not lead to discrimination in recruitment. She would like to know what measures were taken to prohibit the unfair dismissal of non-nationals and whether the Government would consider repealing Act No. 729 of 16 March 1963, under which employers were not required to justify the dismissal of staff.

According to the State party, large-scale checks on workers outside the formal economy had been carried out since 2017, particularly in the construction and catering sectors, resulting in the identification of a significant number of anomalies. The Committee would like to know more about the anomalies found and the measures taken to prevent and remedy them. It would also like to hear about any measures taken to raise migrant workers’ awareness of their rights and the complaints mechanisms available to them and about steps to facilitate their access to such mechanisms.

She wished to know whether the State party had ratified the International Labour Organization (ILO) Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) and the European Social Charter and, if not, what obstacles had prevented it from ratifying those instruments. She would appreciate information on any measures taken to make social assistance more accessible to the many foreign nationals who lived outside Monaco and worked informally as domestic staff within the country.

Given that foreign nationals in an irregular situation were vulnerable to harsh penalties, including large fines, prison sentences and expulsion, she wondered what steps had been taken to harmonize the national legislation with the country’s international obligations in the area of migration, including by decriminalizing irregular migration. It would be interesting to know the grounds on which 392 persons had been expelled from the State party between 2018 and 2021 and the nationalities of the affected persons. She wondered whether any measures were taken to protect migrant women whose residency status depended on that of a violent partner. As three quarters of the population of Monaco were non-nationals, it would be interesting to know whether non-nationals would be granted the right to participate in public affairs, including by voting in elections.

A representative of Monaco said that, although national law did not include a definition of racial discrimination, under articles 17 and 32 of the Constitution efforts were made to combat all forms of discrimination, and all residents of the country enjoyed their fundamental rights. Article 17 was frequently invoked to challenge administrative decisions or legislative provisions that were perceived as unfair. In a ruling issued by the Supreme Court in 2006, for example, the Court had reiterated that identical treatment must be afforded to persons in comparable situations, but that every decision must be examined on the basis of the specific circumstances of the case.

In 2010, in a case concerning access to housing, the Supreme Court had ruled that foreign nationals enjoyed six essential rights within the Principality, including the right to take legal action. A case dating from 2017 illustrated that any measures taken against foreign nationals were based on objective criteria relating to the maintenance of law and order and public safety, and not on discriminatory considerations. In the case in question, an expulsion order had been issued against a foreign national with prior convictions who had been born in Monaco and who had worked there all his life, while a co-defendant, who was also a foreign national, had not been expelled from the country.

Other courts, such as the Court of Appeal and the Employment Tribunal, also reinforced the principle of equality, particularly in the area of social rights. In a ruling dating from 2005, the Court of Revision had established that the purpose of the laws invoked in the proceedings was to protect employees against any inequalities in pay on the basis of gender or place of origin. There were plans in the near future to define direct and indirect discrimination in law.

A representative of Monaco said that social services were made available to all residents of the country, irrespective of their nationality, gender or place of origin. Persons requiring social assistance who had lived in Monaco for less than five years could obtain support from associations, in particular the Monegasque Red Cross, which was able to issue food vouchers and rent subsidies. The social workers at the Red Cross also provided assistance with the administrative procedures involved in finding accommodation.

In certain circumstances, medical assistance could be provided to persons who had lived in the country for less than five years. In line with the code of medical ethics, medical professionals were required to examine, advise and treat all persons, irrespective of their origins, customs, family situation, ethnic affiliation, nationality or religion. The emergency services of public hospitals also unconditionally admitted all persons whose condition required immediate attention. Households were eligible to receive State medical assistance if their income was less than €30 per person per day. The minimum wage currently stood at €2,007 per month.

When migrants were admitted to the country, the Government was empowered to make special arrangements to grant them access to healthcare, social assistance and education for their children. Such arrangements had recently been put in place for persons displaced from Ukraine. The services were managed by an intergovernmental mechanism made up of representatives of each ministry and the Monegasque Red Cross so as to provide for information sharing and to ensure that the system functioned effectively.

A campaign was being implemented to raise awareness of the assistance available for displaced persons, and guidelines on dealing with displaced Ukrainian nationals had been drawn up in French, English and Ukrainian and distributed to all the relevant administrative services and civil society stakeholders. Displaced persons were entitled to a monthly financial allowance, free medical assistance, food aid and hygiene products. An assistance plan had been drawn up for displaced older persons and persons with disabilities.

In order to ensure better social support for displaced persons, the Department of Social Welfare and Social Services had recruited an administrative officer who spoke Ukrainian fluently, and plans were in place to recruit speakers of other languages. Any unaccompanied minors identified in Monaco were housed by the relevant agency and were provided with clothing and hygiene products. Steps were also taken to enrol them in school. A number of organizations assisted displaced persons by providing them with access to schooling, leisure activities, therapeutic care, emergency assistance and psychological care. Dedicated State services promoted migrants’ access to employment, for instance by organizing French language classes for them.

As the Committee had pointed out, Monaco had filed a reservation so that it maintained the right to apply its own legal provisions concerning the admission of foreigners to the labour market. In considering that reservation, it was necessary to bear in mind the make-up of the resident population, which largely consisted of non-nationals. The reservation was invoked only rarely and the prioritization of nationals in the area of employment did not mean that only nationals had the right to employment. In late 2023, nationals had accounted for 9,179 of the 38,967 residents of Monaco and around 1,000 of the 58,000 persons working in the private sector.

The Department of Employment was responsible for implementing the laws and regulations governing private sector employment and for combating underground work. It had conducted 226 labour inspections and 1,200 hygiene inspections in 2023. The Department was also responsible for informing workers and employers about employment rights, enforcing compliance with the relevant legal provisions and preventing disputes in the workplace. Information on employment rights was also published on a government website. Workers whose rights had been violated could file a complaint with the Employment Tribunal.

The Government prioritized carrying out policies for the promotion and protection of women’s rights. An interministerial committee dedicated to that objective had been created and relevant laws – especially with regard to preventing violence against women – had been strengthened. Women who had violent partners and lacked alternative accommodation received assistance from the social services and could be placed at emergency shelters. If necessary, such persons could also be provided with financial assistance, help in finding employment and healthcare coverage for themselves and for children who lived with them.

A representative of Monaco said that education was free and compulsory for all children who were residents of Monaco, whether or not they were nationals.

Ms. Esseneme said that, given that it was stated in the State party’s periodic report that free public education was available only to children whose parents were residents of Monaco, she wished to know how other children were educated. Children whose parents were in an irregular situation and who did not meet the criteria for residence were likely to be in the same situation. Foreign workers had reportedly been dismissed without justification so that they would be replaced by Monegasque nationals. She would be grateful if the delegation could elaborate on its statement that priority access to employment for nationals did not mean that they had entitlement to employment.

Ms. Stavrinaki said that she would be interested to know what assistance was provided to women who had been subjected to violence by a partner and who did not fulfil the criteria for residence, especially when such persons had children. She wondered whether the process of obtaining a residence permit was facilitated for such persons and whether they benefited from financial assistance. Did they face difficulties in obtaining accommodation with their children or in securing the right to visit them?

A representative of Monaco said that, to her knowledge, there had been no cases in which a child in an irregular situation in Monaco had been denied access to education. As Monaco was a very small country, the Government was able to effectively respond to situations of that nature. In such circumstances, it was likely that measures to protect the child would be taken on an ad hoc basis. Despite its small size, Monaco had a tradition of granting asylum and providing support to families that dated back to the Cambodian genocide. Victims of events in Ukraine and Syria had more recently benefited from that tradition. In each case, mechanisms had been put in place to support and settle people and to provide them with access to education.

A representative of Monaco said that the country’s education system was open and inclusive. Only one fifth of children at the 10 public nursery, primary and secondary schools were Monegasque nationals, and nearly one third of children at those schools had parents from the area surrounding Monaco, who worked in Monaco but were neither nationals nor residents. The regulations in force at both public and private educational institutions – which operated subject to a contract with the Government – protected people and groups against discrimination on grounds of their origin, ethnicity, nationality or race – actual or supposed. Anyone who violated such regulations was subject to penalties.

A representative of Monaco said that refoulement was an expulsion measure that was provided for by article 22 of Sovereign Order No. 3.153 of 19 March 1964 on the conditions for the entry and stay of foreign nationals in the Principality. It was applied to persons who presented a risk to public order. Any refoulement must be justified, and persons subject to refoulement had several avenues of appeal, including a preliminary administrative, ex gratia or hierarchical appeal and an application for annulment on the ground of abuse of authority before the Supreme Court. Some 85 to 90 per cent of the persons who were subjected to refoulement between 2018 and 2022 were citizens of the European Union.

A representative of Monaco said legislative provisions provided that Monegasque nationals were to be given priority access to employment. However, in addition, there was established case law that set certain conditions. The post in question must be vacant and a Monegasque candidate with the requisite skills must be available to fill it. Act No. 629 of 7 July 1957 regulating the conditions of recruitment and dismissal in Monaco also provided that nationals were to be prioritized for retention in the event of redundancies. If they were made redundant, they were to be given priority access to re-employment for a period of six months. Established case law set forth the circumstances that constituted unfair dismissal, which included dismissal under false pretences with malicious intent and dismissal in an abusive manner.

A representative of Monaco said that the principle of family reunification was not enshrined in Monegasque law.

A representative of Monaco said that Sovereign Order No. 9.966 of 30 June 2023 amending Sovereign Order No. 605 of 1 August 2006 implementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime expressly provided that victims of trafficking in persons were entitled to receive comprehensive information and to be advised with respect to their personal situation. The officers and agents of the Criminal Investigation Division were obligated to inform them orally and by any other means necessary of their rights to obtain compensation for harm suffered, to initiate civil proceedings to secure compensation and to receive assistance from State services or from a government-funded association providing victim support. Persons with disabilities who were victims of human trafficking were entitled to full access to such information in a form adapted to their needs. Presumed victims of trafficking received the same document that was provided to crime victims. It included information about their status as a victim, their rights and how to exercise them. All victims of crimes committed in Monaco who met the relevant conditions were entitled to free legal aid.

A representative of Monaco said that victims of domestic violence were first of all provided with safe accommodation. Hotel accommodation could be provided in the absence of alternatives. Such persons were subsequently provided with medical care if needed and psychological support to the extent possible and for an indeterminate period. They were also provided with legal advice, an introduction to relevant services, access to a helpline that provided them with relevant information and, subsequently, support in obtaining food and clothing. Such placements were made for an open-ended period while the necessary steps were taken. Women who were not Monegasque nationals could not be expelled from the country during that time. Subsequently, such persons were provided with support to help them find stable accommodation, either in Monaco or elsewhere, if necessary.

The Labour Inspectorate worked actively to combat the problem of undeclared work and relevant awareness-raising campaigns were regularly carried out. Access to employment was strictly regulated and workers needed to hold a work permit issued by the Department of Employment, subject to clearance.

A representative of Monaco said that Monaco did not intend to become a member of the International Labour Organization in the near future. To prevent contradictions from arising in Monegasque law, Monaco did not become a party to international instruments when it was not able to implement them in full.

Ms. Esseneme said that, given that the principle of family reunification was not enshrined in Monegasque law, she wished to know whether there was any way that persons who were in a regular situation in Monaco could arrange for close family members to travel to the country to live with them. She wondered whether the fact that a person had an insufficient income could serve as grounds for expulsion from the country.

Ms. Tebie said that she would be grateful to learn whether men who were perpetrators of domestic violence were prosecuted; whether statistics showed a year-on-year increase or decline in acts of violence against women; and what measures the Government was taking to reduce the commission of such acts.

A representative of Monaco said that men who committed acts of domestic violence were prosecuted and imprisoned or expelled. Women victims of domestic violence were provided with shelter in all cases, whatever their status or nationality. Persons who wished to reside in Monaco needed to demonstrate that they were able either to rent or to buy an apartment or that they could be accommodated by somebody else, and that they had sufficient resources to live in the country. The Government did not specify a minimum required income for that purpose. Foreigners who wished to arrange for family members to join them in Monaco could do so if they could demonstrate that they were able to provide them with accommodation and had sufficient resources to cover their needs.

A representative of Monaco said that the threshold of €30 per day was used to determine eligibility to benefit from State-funded healthcare services and social security coverage when such entitlements did not already exist. Eligibility was extended if a person’s earnings amounted to less than that amount for the person and for each of the person’s dependents.

A representative of Monaco said that, although the principle of family reunification was not expressly enshrined in Monegasque law, in practice family ties were taken into account in the issuing of residence permits so that foreigners were able to arrange for close family members to join them.

A representative of Monaco said that, although the applications of foreign nationals who wished to become residents of Monaco were considered on an individual basis, that did not exclude the possibility of close family members submitting their own applications.

The meeting was suspended at 11.15 a.m. and resumed at 11.30 a.m.

Mr. Guan (Country Task Force) said it was his understanding that the legal framework governing the right of peaceful assembly did not cover open-air meetings, and that such meetings were subject to the authorization of the police. He would appreciate it if the delegation could confirm that to be the case. He would also appreciate further information in general on the enjoyment of that right by non-nationals. In view of the large proportion of non-nationals in the workforce, it would be of interest to hear what was being done to promote their participation, without discrimination as to nationality, in trade unions and their representative bodies. Some flexibility had reportedly already been shown in that respect.

The period of married life required for the acquisition of Monegasque nationality through marriage had been raised from 10 to 20 years, and inquiries were conducted into the morality and situation of applicants. He would like to know whether there was a recognized interpretation of the term “morality” or if it was left to the discretion of the administration, and how the “situation of the applicant” was defined by the legislation. It was reportedly prohibited for divorced persons who had previously been naturalized through marriage to transmit their Monegasque nationality to a new spouse. He would like to find out whether that rule applied to stateless persons and whether the children of such unions were entitled to Monegasque nationality. In general, he would like to learn about any measures taken or planned to facilitate the acquisition of nationality by foreign nationals who lived and worked in Monaco.

Noting that trafficking in persons had been criminalized under Sovereign Order No. 605 of 2006, he said that he would welcome a detailed update on measures taken to prevent and combat human trafficking, including the trafficking of non-nationals and trafficking for purposes of labour. The Committee would appreciate it if the delegation could inform it of the status of the circular on the adoption of an interdepartmental plan of action against trafficking developed by the legal services. Information on measures taken to improve the identification of victims, and on the support, including mental health support, available to them, whatever their status in the State party, would be of interest. He would like to know what measures had been adopted to guarantee that victims of trafficking were not punished for acts directly related to their situation. How many complaints of trafficking had been lodged, inquiries and prosecutions conducted and convictions and penalties handed down, and what redress or rehabilitation had been provided to victims? Had any measures been taken, or were any planned, to include the offence of trafficking in the Criminal Code in order to ensure its full prosecution?

It was noteworthy that, while very few irregular migrants were reported in the State party, there were many who lived in the neighbouring country and worked in Monaco in undeclared employment, a fact that could have an effect on the relevant data. He would welcome a description of any measures taken for the adoption of legislation on the protection of refugees and asylum-seekers, in line with international standards and including the principles of non-refoulement and non-discrimination, as well as information on the procedure for the determination of refugee status.

In respect of education on human rights, he would like to receive further information on changes made in school curricula and further education programmes to promote awareness of the Convention and of the need to combat racial discrimination, racism and xenophobia. What was the impact of such measures, and how were related topics, such as the contribution of migrants to the development and national history of Monaco, included in teaching programmes and manuals at every level? Had any awareness-raising campaigns been conducted to eradicate discrimination based on race, skin colour and national or ethnic origin?

A representative of Monaco said that all nationals of Monaco, including the royal family, were descendants of immigrants, whether in ancient times or more recently, and were thus well aware of the value of immigration.

A representative of Monaco said that freedom of association was a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution and framed by legislation. Measures currently under consideration included enshrining the freedom to form, join and participate in the activities of trade unions. Another objective was to open up the leadership of trade unions to foreign nationals who were resident in the Principality or neighbouring areas and were working or had worked in the country. The discussions, conducted in close collaboration with the social partners, were aimed at setting down in law the flexibility that already existed in practice. The issue was very specific to the country and the composition of its workforce. There were already a number of trade union leaders who were not Monegasque nationals.

A representative of Monaco said that, in contrast to the situation in other countries, most persons who acquired Monegasque nationality were not obliged to relinquish their nationality of origin.

A representative of Monaco said that the country’s extremely small size and the fact that the nation had, throughout the ages, identified itself with the Sovereign were factors behind the ways in which nationality could be acquired. The provisions of Act No. 1.155 of 18 December 1992 on nationality, stemming from article 18 of the Constitution, provided for acquisition of nationality by parentage, declaration or naturalization. It could be lost automatically in the case of voluntary acquisition of another nationality or illegal service in a foreign army, or by voluntary renunciation.

Monegasque nationality could be acquired by parentage subject to certain restrictions, depending on how the parent had acquired nationality. Furthermore, minor children adopted by a person with Monegasque nationality could acquire nationality by declaration. All persons born in Monaco of unknown parents were entitled to Monegasque nationality.

In 2011, Act No. 1.3887 had changed the law on nationality to allow for the acquisition of Monegasque citizenship by declaration, by both male and female spouses of nationals, after 10 years of marriage. The previous provisions had allowed only female spouses to thus acquire nationality, after 5 years. Subsequently, the required qualifying period had been increased to 20 years. Persons acquiring Monegasque nationality by declaration were not required to renounce their previous nationality. If they later divorced their Monegasque spouses, they could thus transmit their original nationality to children born in a subsequent union. Therefore, no such child would be stateless.

The acquisition of nationality by naturalization was provided for in article 6 of the Act and article 15 of the Constitution. Requests for naturalization or reacquisition of nationality were not subject to an administrative decision, but were ruled on by the Prince alone, by sovereign order. As such, there was no legal requirement to provide any justification. A request submitted by any persons over the age of 18 who had resided in the Principality for at least 10 years could be considered after an inquiry into their moral standing and their situation. In cases of nationalization, successful applicants were required to renounce their previous nationality. Naturalization, unlike declaration, had a collective effect. In order to ensure the unity of the family, the minor children of a person who acquired nationality through naturalization were also granted Monegasque nationality.

A representative of Monaco said that the penalties for the offence of trafficking in persons provided under Sovereign Order No. 605 of 1 August 2006, as amended pursuant to Sovereign Order No. 9.966 of 30 June 2023, were in line with the provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, including in respect of the irrelevance of the victim’s consent. A person convicted of trafficking in persons could be sentenced to between 5 and 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of between €18,000 and €90,000. Additional penalties applied when there were aggravating circumstances. In the case of deliberate causation of danger to life or serious negligence, or when the offence was committed against minors or by public officials in the exercise of their duties, or in the context of a criminal organization, the period of imprisonment was increased to between 10 and 20 years.

The circular on a plan of action against human trafficking produced by the legal services directorate was under consideration by the Government and should be validated in 2025. It was aimed at the development of an interdepartmental plan for the proactive identification of victims of trafficking. It would also aim to establish a presumption of trafficking and specify the rights of trafficking victims, including their right to a period of recovery and reflection and, possibly, to a residence permit.

There was currently no plan to include the offences covered by Sovereign Order No. 605 in the Criminal Code. Sovereign orders were of the same importance in the legal hierarchy as the Code itself. However, the delegation had taken note of the Committee’s recommendation in that respect.

A representative of Monaco said that work permits were delivered in line with the regulations governing the exercise of employment. They were subject to prior authorization. When an application for a work permit was submitted, the labour directorate systematically conducted an administrative inquiry before any permit was issued.

If there were doubts about the authenticity of the papers submitted to the administrative review, the documents were referred to the competent authorities in the relevant State for verification. If they were found to have been falsified, that was not considered evidence of trafficking in human beings in Monaco. However, it was an indication of the possible existence of a trafficking network in the other country.

The administrative inquiries into persons applying for naturalization were intended to ensure that applicants had no criminal convictions and were not subject to prosecution in Monaco or elsewhere.

A representative of Monaco said that the purpose of the draft circular on the adoption of an interdepartmental plan of action against trafficking was to facilitate the identification of victims, guarantee their right to shelter and accommodation, provide for their psychological and medical support and prevent their exploitation for labour purposes.

Labour exploitation fell under the mandate of the Labour Inspectorate, which worked closely with the police and the Public Prosecution Department. In joint operations, the labour inspectors were able to enter a workplace and identify persons working without a permit. That did not necessarily indicate trafficking. An individual’s status could be easily regularized, if necessary. The interdepartmental coordination plan included improved procedures for establishing the age of victims and provided special protection measures for victims who were minors.

A representative of Monaco said that, to supplement the French curriculum on which the education system of Monaco was based, classes in French as a foreign language were provided to help non-French speaking pupils, such as recent arrivals from Ukraine, to integrate.

The curriculum included special courses on human rights for all children from preschool through secondary education, notably as part of the moral and civic education syllabus. Human rights were also addressed in literature, language, economics and science classes. In addition, Monaco took advantage of the various international human rights days as an opportunity to raise awareness. World Children’s Day had for more than 20 years been marked by the Department of Education, Youth and Sports, with students at all levels involved in special activities. The Department also funded associations working with vulnerable students and families. Similarly, all schools were involved in action to raise awareness of bullying during the month of November. Other events took place on the International Day of Peace, the International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of This Crime, and the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

Mr. Guan said that, while he welcomed the information on the place of human rights teaching in the State party’s education system, he would like to hear about any general features of the system that set it apart from the French system on which it was based. He would also like to know what legislative instrument prohibited racial profiling.

Ms. Boker-Wilson said that the right to dual citizenship provided some protection from statelessness in the event of the loss of one nationality. Not all States, however, permitted the retention of nationality on acquisition of another. A person from such a State could marry a citizen of Monaco and acquire Monegasque nationality, thereby losing the other nationality. She would like to know what happened if that person divorced. Could such persons subsequently pass their Monegasque nationality on to a child?

Ms. Tebie said that she would be interested to know whether the State party had put in place a programme to implement the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action against racism, racial discrimination, intolerance and xenophobia. If so, what had the outcomes been? Was there any formal mechanism to evaluate the programme?

Mr. Diaby said that he wished to address concerns raised by the delegation that the Committee might be exceeding its mandate in raising questions on violence against women. He wished to recall that the Committee’s mandate covered numerous protected groups and that their members included women who could be victims of hidden discrimination. The Committee’s questions were therefore intended to ascertain whether the State party made adequate provision for their protection.

Given that around three quarters of the population were of foreign origin, he would be interested to hear if the State party had put in place any procedures under the Global Action Plan to End Statelessness 2014–2024 to determine the percentage or number of stateless persons in its territory. Was the delegation able to provide any figures on statelessness?

A representative of Monaco said that, with every human rights treaty body, the delegation of Monaco always called into question the discussion of subjects that fell outside the scope of the instrument under discussion. Violence against women was dealt with without regard for victims’ association with any specific groups. Victims were all given support, protection, shelter and assistance. As victims of violence against women, they formed a group in themselves and were extended protection, as stipulated by law.

As to education, the French curriculum was used because the majority of teachers were French, and French was the official language. As a means of catering to the large number of foreigners in the Principality, however, the curriculum was supplemented by courses aimed at improving their understanding of Monaco, its traditions and its languages.

A representative of Monaco said that the use of racial profiling by law enforcement officers was prohibited under Act No. 1.165 of 23 December 1993, on the processing of personal information. Article 12 prohibited the use of information that would reveal a person’s opinions or beliefs, political affiliations or membership of a racial or religious group, except where free, prior, informed consent had been given. Particular attention was paid to personal information that was handled by automated procedures. Possible penalties included a prison term of between 3 months and 1 year and a fine of between €10,000 and €80,000.

A representative of Monaco said that the acquisition of nationality was never automatic. Once the required waiting period had elapsed, an applicant needed to submit a statement declaring a desire to become a citizen of Monaco. If dual nationality was not permitted by the State of origin, the person could simply decide not to make such a statement and instead to keep the original nationality.

A representative of Monaco said that the Principality had ratified the relevant international conventions on statelessness precisely to minimize the risk of legal uncertainty. In any given case involving dual nationality, if Monegasque domestic legislation clashed with that of the person’s State of origin, the Government would attempt to determine how flexible the latter was and whether it permitted any exemptions. Such situations could be dealt with only on a case-by-case basis.

A representative of Monaco said that the Government was currently dealing with the cases of 12 stateless persons. They had not lost their nationality as a result of their residence in Monaco; they had arrived as stateless persons.

A representative of Monaco said that one example of the Principality’s approach to the needs of stateless persons was that of the cellist Mstislav Rostropovich, who had been issued travel documents, despite his stateless status, because he had been stripped of his original nationality. He had thus been able to travel and pursue his career, pending the restitution of his original nationality.

A representative of Monaco said that, while not all stateless individuals needed support and assistance, if they did, then the relevant government services responsible for social welfare, social assistance and integration into the labour market took action, just as they did for nationals. In the case of minors, additional support was given in the form of accommodation and access to education, for example.

A representative of Monaco said that, apart from the awareness-raising programmes already referred to, there were no specific action plans or campaigns directly related to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

A representative of Monaco said that, under the regulatory and legislative provisions incorporating the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime into domestic law, around 100 of the 600 staff of the Monaco Police Department had attended training in methods of providing support and assistance to victims of human trafficking. Such training was provided in initial or in-service training or in feedback sessions. In 2023, 80 criminal investigation officers had received specialist training in subjects related to human trafficking, identification of victims and investigation, and two investigators from specialized units had attended courses in France.

Ms. Esseneme said that she wished to thank the delegation of Monaco for a fruitful and constructive dialogue.

A representative of Monaco said that she wished to thank the members of the Committee for their work in preparing the review and for the interactive process.

The meeting rose at 12.50 p.m.