Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Ninety-sixth session

Summary record of the 2663rd meeting

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva, on Friday, 17 August 2018, at 10 a.m.

Chair:Mr. Amir

Contents

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

Combined tenth and eleventh periodic reports of Japan (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 tenth and eleventh periodic reports of Japan (continued) (CERD/C/JPN/10-11 and CERD/C/JPN/Q/10-11)

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

2.Ms. Shepherd said that she was interested to know how article 5 of the Convention, particularly in respect of the right to education and training, was interpreted and applied in the State party. She was impressed that Japan had achieved gender parity in the rate of advancement to secondary school, with figures of over 98 per cent for both boys and girls. However, she was curious to know whether minority and foreign students were subject to the compulsory education policy and whether they were afforded adequate opportunities to learn Japanese in order to be competitive in the education system.

3.The Committee was interested to know why, in the 2010 population census, the school attendance of 13,000 children aged 7–14 years was unknown. The data provided on the school attendance and drop-out rates in primary and secondary education were welcome; however, she wondered whether children from minorities were more likely to drop out of school and whether education in minority languages was adequately guaranteed. It was a matter of concern that Korean students continued to be excluded from the High School Tuition Support Fund, despite the recommendation contained in the Committee’s previous concluding observations (CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9). She hoped that the matter would be reconsidered, since the statistics made clear that Koreans provided with adequate support were able to excel at university.

4.Drawing attention to paragraph 78 of the report, she asked whether the Basic Act on Education was in full conformity with the Convention against Discrimination in Education adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, since it appeared that article 4 of the Basic Act was not aligned with article 1 of that Convention or article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. She appealed for the State party to reconsider its position on the Convention against Discrimination in Education.

5.Lastly, she expressed concern about the issue of comfort women and the hope that claims for redress would be settled. She commended the State party for engaging with civil society in the preparation of the report, having taken on board the Committee’s previous concluding observations in that regard.

6.Mr. Otaka (Japan) said that in keeping with article 4 of the Convention, the Penal Code contained broad provisions for the prosecution of individuals and groups who circulated ideas based on racial superiority and who incited racial and religious hatred. Although the Government recognized that its laws in that regard were not fully comprehensive, it needed to give careful thought to how it would address the issue, considering the need to ensure that any new criminal provisions did not conflict with the Constitution and did not curtail freedom of speech.

7.Referring to the absence of a specific and comprehensive law prohibiting racial discrimination, he pointed out that article 14 of the Constitution established that “all people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin”. That principle was extended to employment, education, access to medicine and medical treatment and the use of transportation, among other areas. Provisions prohibiting racial discrimination included article 3 of the Labour Standards Act, which stipulated that “an employer shall not engage in discriminatory treatment with respect to wages, working hours or other working conditions by reason of the nationality, creed or social status of any worker”, while article 4 of the Basic Education Act provided that “the people must be given equal opportunities to receive an education suited to their abilities, and must not be subjected to discrimination in education on account of race, creed, sex, social status, economic position, or family origin”. Victims of racial discrimination could apply for damages and compensation under the Civil Code. The Ministry of Justice responded to enquiries about racial discrimination and swiftly investigated suspected infringements.

8.All Japanese people living in Okinawa Prefecture, regardless of their origin, were afforded the same rights and allowed to practice their religion and culture. The Government recognized and respected that the people of Okinawa had a unique tradition and had passed laws to preserve such traditions throughout Japan. However, it considered that the only indigenous people of Japan were the Ainu; there was no widespread understanding in Japan that people in Okinawa were an indigenous people and they did not regard themselves as such. Although some young people were unemployed, measures had been adopted to boost tourism and the number of people working had increased since the island had been returned to Japan in 1972; the social and economic situation was currently improving. Regarding the crimes committed by personnel employed at United States military bases, the Government of Japan considered that the only measure that would reduce such incidents was the relocation of the Futenma air station.

9.The Government expressed its remorse and regret over the issue of comfort women, recognizing that it had been an affront to the dignity of many women. In July 1995, the Asian Women’s Fund had been established by the Government and citizens to provide relief for former comfort women from Korea, Indonesia, the Netherlands, the Philippines and Taiwan, including “atonement money” and the provision of welfare and medical support. Furthermore, the then Prime Minister had sent a letter to each former comfort woman. The programme of the Asian Women’s Fund had been implemented to the largest extent possible and atonement money had been paid to 61 former comfort women from Korea, who in turn had conveyed their appreciation to the Government and to the people of Japan who had supported the Fund. Unfortunately, some people had a tendency to misunderstand the situation, compounded by the publication of statements that had subsequently been confirmed as fictitious. In that regard, he recalled that the comfort women issue had received significant public attention as a result of a 1983 book by Mr. Seiji Yoshida, which claimed that the Japanese military had “hunted” Korean women on the island of Jeju. Although the author later admitted to inventing that episode, the falsehood had spread all over the world. Therefore, he underscored the importance of looking at the facts objectively and he invited the Committee to examine the expert studies and research that had been published and translated into English.

10.In 2015, a final and irreversible agreement on comfort women had been signed by Japan and the Republic of Korea and welcomed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the international community at large. The aim of the agreement, in a spirit of reconciliation and healing, was to restore the dignity and reputation of former comfort women. A new settlement had been reached and accepted by 36 of the 47 surviving women. He pointed out that it was neither factually accurate nor appropriate to use the term “sexual slavery” or to refer to comfort women as sex slaves. The Government of Japan opposed the use of such terms and the Government of the Republic of Korea had recognized that they should be avoided.

11.Due consideration was being given to a number of issues relating to the human rights bodies of the Ministry of Justice, which were administered in accordance with the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (Paris Principles). However, the Government was not yet in a position to give more specific details.

12.In 2005, the Government had criminalized trafficking in persons and related activities in accordance with the definition provided under article 3 of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Further steps to protect non-Japanese trafficking victims included the granting of special visas so that victims could remain in the country, the establishment of information centres to provide support, and close cooperation with embassies. Although the Government did not believe that new laws were necessary, it had committed to taking appropriate measures to combat trafficking and to protect and support victims.

13.The revised Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Persons had been adopted in December 2014 and a conference on trafficking had been held with the participation of all ministries. Japan implemented strict immigration controls and the Immigration Bureau of the Ministry of Justice worked with the police to investigate and address any detected issues, including incidents of trafficking victims being subjected to labour or sexual exploitation. The police and other authorities held meetings with businesses to explain the issue and to provide information and raids were carried out on companies suspected of exploiting trafficking victims. Efforts were also invested in training police, embassy and other officials to ensure the protection of victims.

14.Victims of human trafficking were afforded protection under the law. Immigration officials examined the situation of each victim and in most cases issued a special permit for the person to stay in the country. Any foreigners who were confirmed to be victims of human trafficking were provided with accommodation, legal aid, medical support and advice on education and employment. Under the Medical Practitioners’ Act, no patient could be denied treatment on the basis of his or her nationality. Victims of human trafficking could discuss human rights issues with a Ministry of Justice representative, who would give advice and direct them to the appropriate agency to handle their queries. Officials of those agencies could explain criminal procedures and investigations in the country. If a Government official suspected that any human rights violation had taken place, an investigation would be initiated and appropriate action would be taken. Strict penalties were imposed for human trafficking and related crimes. In 2014, the police force, Ministry of Justice, Supreme Court, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and the Coast Guard had launched a joint task force to combat human trafficking. To that end, members of the task force had consolidated their experiences and expertise to write guidelines for the immigration officials.

15.Those applying for refugee status were provided with housing and medical support. Refugees were issued a residence permit and allowed to work in the country. Despite the fact that some false refugee applications had been made, more than 90 per cent of applications had been approved and work permits had been issued to all refugees within six months of their application. Awareness-raising measures had been implemented to promote understanding of refugees and their status. Those measures included the publication of pamphlets and the organization of seminars, workshops and international cooperation events.

16.The Ministry of Justice was taking measures to eradicate prejudice and discrimination against foreigners. Seminars and other awareness-raising activities had been organized for local communities and private sector actors. The police were required by law to be neutral and did not engage in profiling on the basis of ethnicity or religion. New police recruits and other staff working in crime prevention or criminal detention underwent specific human rights training.

17.Under the Basic Act on Education, all citizens had equal education rights. Foreigners living in the country benefited from the same rights to education as nationals. The Government would examine the conformity of its legislation with the Convention against Discrimination in Education, however, there were no plans in place to ratify that Convention in the near future. The Government would carefully study compliance with the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.

18.Mr. Sugiura (Japan) said that Article 15 of the Constitution stipulated that only Japanese citizens could hold elected office. In accordance with Article 93 of the Constitution, at the local government level only Japanese citizens with an address in the district could participate. The question of foreign residents voting in elections would be discussed in the Diet.

19.In line with accepted international practice, individuals without a valid passport could not enter the country because their identity could not be verified. However, an entry visa could be used as an alternative to a valid passport. For example, the Government did not accept the validity of passports issued by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea but those citizens could enter the country by means of an entry visa. That practice did not amount to racial discrimination as it was not limited to citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

20.The Ministry of Justice gathered immigration data by means of a census survey. In order to qualify for public housing immigrants needed to fulfil the selection criteria. If they had difficulties finding housing, they could join the housing register. Members of the register enjoyed many benefits with regard to housing. Children of immigrant parents were free to attend either public or private school. The Government offered guidance to employers with the aim of eliminating discrimination in employment. Labour regulations applied to all workers, regardless of citizenship or nationality. Immigrants could access health care, whether or not they had citizenship.

21.The Government provided guidance to private companies on how employees should be treated, in accordance with the regulations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the guiding principles of human rights. In that regard, forums were held with stakeholders and action plans had been developed for Japanese businesses. His Government would continue to promote non-discrimination.

22.Mr. Sugihara (Japan) said that the Ministry of Justice was working to eliminate discrimination of the Buraku population and the social problems experienced by Buraku communities. Legislation was in place to that effect; a specific law had been adopted in 2016 to combat racial discrimination. Under that law, both local and national governments were obliged to implement awareness-raising measures and establish consultation centres for Buraku people. The Ministry of Justice facilitated access to legal recourse for victims of discrimination. The Ministry also distributed leaflets and uploaded videos to YouTube in order to raise awareness about racial discrimination. No discrimination against any Japanese citizen was allowed and the Government was working to eliminate the issue of online discrimination. A study on discrimination of the Buraku people would be used to develop more effective measures against discrimination.

23.Mr. Sugiura (Japan) said that racially motivated hate speech against the Buraku population was not a problem in the country. He would like to thank the Committee members for acknowledging the improved socioeconomic situation of that population.

24.Mr. Hama da (Japan) said that hate speech would not be tolerated in his country. The Government had taken steps to raise awareness about that issue and had implemented measures to eliminate it. The Hate Speech Elimination Act had come into force in 2016. That Act did not establish a specific penalty for hate speech. However, perpetrators could be prosecuted for defamation, insult, obstruction of business or intimidation. The Ministry of Justice had established a system for consultations with victims of hate speech, both nationals and foreigners. Offices had been established under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice to carry out consultations with victims of hate speech and other human rights violations. Those offices were staffed by volunteer human rights commissioners who were selected by the Ministry. Information collected by the human rights commissioners was used to initiate investigations into human rights abuses and analyse the extent of human rights issues in the country. The results of those investigations and analyses would be used to develop further measures against abuses of human rights. Surveys and interviews had been used to draft a law on the elimination of hate speech. Although the unacceptable nature of discriminatory discourse was widely recognized in society, the results of a 2017 public opinion survey had revealed that some people were not aware of the issues relating to hate speech. The Government was therefore focussing on education and awareness-raising activities. Officials were working to find more effective methods of preventing hate speech and other human rights violations.

25.Ms. Kishimoto (Japan) said that the Broadcast Act provided that broadcasters must not air programmes that harmed public safety or good morals, and that their reporting must not distort the facts. The Government recognized that broadcasters played an important social role by editing programmes independently within the framework of the Broadcast Act.

26.Mr. Hamada (Japan) said that a model legislative provision governed the Government’s response to illegal and harmful information. Any health-related online content that was considered discriminatory was regulated by that provision. In particular, all Ministry of Justice bureaus responded swiftly to claims of online discrimination by checking the relevant websites and asking providers to remove content that infringed human rights. Providers were asked to provide specific information on how they would remove offending content from the Internet, and were given advice to that effect.

27.Public servants, regional government employees, teachers, law enforcement officials, judges and the staff of correctional facilities and immigration bureaus received wide-ranging training with regard to human rights issues, including racial discrimination.

28.The Government was aware that hate speech, which incited conflict and must not be tolerated, was the product of a discriminatory mindset. Measures were in place to increase the value placed upon human rights by society as a whole. The goal was to make people aware that discriminatory behaviour by persons of any race was prohibited.

29.The Ministry of Justice sought to foster respect for non-Japanese people by holding lectures and commissioning videos and television dramas that addressed the topic. It also created posters, comics, booklets and leaflets, examples of which had been provided to the Committee for its information. Many such materials were available on the website of the Ministry of Justice. The slogan on one of the main posters translated as “We will not allow hate speech”. Japanese comics, or manga, were also produced by the Government and distributed widely. Since comics were beloved of young and old alike in Japan, they were an effective way of raising awareness. Leaflets provided at immigration bureaus and embassy offices explained the ways in which non-Japanese people could obtain help via information desks and a special hotline. English versions were available for those who could not read Japanese. Lastly, the Ministry of Justice carried out a number of other activities to protect human rights, and a blue booklet had been published to explain those activities in an easy-to-read format.

30.The Government was aware that awareness-raising activities took time. However, it believed that they constituted an effective method of working towards the elimination of hate speech and all other forms of discrimination. In addition, it hoped to make further efforts in future, including in the legislative realm, to tackle that very difficult issue.

31.Mr. Sugiura said that the Hate Speech Elimination Act had been discussed by members of both the ruling political party and opposition parties. Therefore, while criminalization and legal penalties for engaging in hate speech might be an option in the future, the consensus decision had been to start with that particular Act. Hate speech by State-sector workers was handled in accordance with the law and the facts.

32.Mr. Yamamoto said that children who had foreign nationalities were eligible to receive public education in Japan as long as they so desired. Children had the right to receive compulsory education in Japan irrespective of their residency status. A support system was available to foreign children, including support for learning their mother tongue. Alternatively, such children had the right to attend foreign schools in Japan.

33.The High School Tuition Support Fund was not limited to Japanese children, but was used to support children of all nationalities provided that their school was certified in accordance with the regulations. Students at foreign schools could also qualify for money from the Fund. As schools received such funds on behalf of the students, it was imperative that the correct management and operation processes were in place. In future, Korean schools would also be eligible to receive money from the Fund if they complied with the relevant Japanese laws and regulations. To date, there had been five cases before the Japanese courts involving Korean schools that had not received financial resources from the High School Tuition Support Fund System. Three of the four cases already decided had been judged in favour of the Government of Japan.

34.Another fund existed from which money could be allocated to schools by local governments. In March 2016, the Ministry of Education had issued a notification to explain the terms of that fund, which was for schools that had completely transparent operations. No legislation had been enacted to exclude any specific type of school from the programme.

35.Students who graduated from foreign schools could gain admission to Japanese universities provided that they held the requisite qualifications. Legislative amendments were also being enacted to extend the ways in which students could gain admission to Japanese universities. In 1999, it had been decided that students from non-Japanese schools could take a special university qualification examination. In 2003, various universities had awarded entry based on interviews and the examination of applicants’ education histories.

36.Mr. Iriyama (Japan) said that surveys had been conducted in Japan to acquire information about the education, work and living conditions of the Ainu people. In Hokkaido, a policy to improve their lives had been implemented for the period 2016–2020 after three rounds of revisions. The social and economic status of the Ainu people had consequently improved, as shown by the most recent survey to evaluate the impact of the policy, conducted in 2017. The policy would be continued and applied not only in Hokkaido but in other areas of Japan by the relevant regional bodies. The Government of Japan would support those regional bodies to ensure the successful implementation of the policy.

37.The Chair, thanking the delegation for the large number of answers provided, said that any responses to questions not yet answered that were submitted in writing within 48 hours would be taken into account in the Committee’s concluding observations.

38.Mr. Avtonomov said that he wished to thank the delegation for the information it had provided regarding the Burakumin. However, he wished to stress that the issue had been raised because the Committee considered the term “descent” to have a particular meaning under article 1 of the Convention, as expressed in general recommendation No. 24 (1999). Specifically, discrimination based on “descent” included discrimination against members of communities based on systems of inherited status which nullified or impaired their equal enjoyment of human rights. While he was grateful to have been provided with information about the Act on the Promotion of the Elimination of Buraku Discrimination, adopted in 2016, he had read the law and, because no specific funding was allocated for its implementation, he was concerned that it was not enforceable.

39.As the State party had not ratified the ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), he would be pleased if it could explain, in its next periodic report to the Committee, any plans it had to ratify that Convention.

40.Mr. Marugán said that, while it was commendable that the State party had very good training, awareness-raising and education policies for the elimination of hate speech, he failed to see how the Government prohibited hate speech in practice to give effect to article 4 of the Convention. He would be grateful if the delegation could provide examples of how the obligations stipulated in article 4 had been fulfilled in the Japanese legal system or through convictions or penalties. It was his understanding that crimes that were racially motivated did not incur specific penalties in the State party. He would welcome examples of how acts of incitement to racial violence had been punished.

41.With regard to training, he would be interested to know exactly what kind of training was provided to judges and civil servants. Training on racist motives, in particular, was recommended. Lastly, he would appreciate clarification regarding whether and why teachers of foreign nationalities could not be assigned to managerial positions in Japan.

42.Mr. Calí Tzay said that, according to reports, cases of hate speech had increased since the adoption of the Act on the Promotion of Efforts to Eliminate Unfair Discriminatory Speech and Behaviour against Persons Originating from Outside Japan (Hate Speech Elimination Act). He would like to know whether the Government intended to conduct a study into the rise of such cases. According to the most recent Hokkaido Ainu Living Conditions Survey of 2013, there were approximately 13,000 such persons living in Japan. However, their numbers had decreased by over 1,000 persons in comparison to the 2006 Survey and he would be grateful for an explanation as to why that was the case. Similarly, he asked why there had been a reduction in the number of Ainu children attending secondary school between the Surveys of 2006 and 2013.

43.Mr. Murillo Martínez said that he would appreciate a comment from the delegation on whether the State party had any mechanisms in place for following up on the recommendations issued by international bodies, such as the Committee. Some States parties had established inter-institutional bodies in their respective countries for that purpose and he wondered whether Japan had considered doing the same.

44.Ms. Chung said that the efforts by the Asian Women’s Fund (AWF) to redress the plight of comfort women had been undertaken without a thorough investigation of the facts, without recognition of legal liability and without a formal apology at the State level. The majority of victims and civil society organizations opposed AWF and its attempts at addressing the issue because it had approached victims individually, knowing that it would be difficult for the former comfort women, many of whom were destitute, to refuse the money that they were being offered as compensation. Some victims felt obliged to hide the fact that they had accepted the money and therefore endured a second affront to their dignity.

45.Although it was unclear whether the memoirs of Seiji Yoshida were true, his accounts were not the only ones to demonstrate the suffering imposed on comfort women. There were a vast number of other written documents, photos, videos and personal testimonies that attested to the plight of such women. She also noted that the 2015 agreement reached between Japan and South Korea on the issue of comfort women had been criticised by the United Nations for not offering a victim-oriented approach. Regarding terminology, United Nations human rights bodies had been using the term “sex slavery” in relation to comfort women since the 1990s. Similarly, the South Korean non-governmental organization (NGO) working on the same issue was called the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan.

46.In respect of North Korean schools, she asked how such schools did not comply with Japanese regulations and with which regulations in particular. She also sought clarification as to whether the decision to exclude North Korean schools from the High School Tuition Support Fund System was politically motivated following the official acknowledgement in 2002 by North Korea that it had abducted Japanese nationals.

47.Mr. Bossuyt (Country Rapporteur) said that he did not understand why the Hate Speech Elimination Act was limited only to persons of foreign origin and, therefore, noted the need to improve the Act’s scope of protection. The State approach to the issue of comfort women could be improved; efforts to minimize the crime or deny its occurrence were not acceptable solutions. He would like an explanation as to why the term “sexual slavery” was not appropriate when used in connection with comfort women. He urged the State party to rethink its decision not to offer subsidies to students attending Korean schools. The abduction of Japanese nationals by North Korea could not be blamed on children attending such schools and the majority of the pupils were in fact of South Korean origin.

48.Ms. Izsák-Ndiaye said that the participation of the Buraku people in decision-making was a key element to ensuring their representation and that a consultation centre should be established in Buraku communities for that purpose. She would like to know why, in accordance with the law, non-nationals were not permitted to take up public functions. She was concerned about intersecting forms of discrimination against minority women. A 2016 study on Korean women revealed that the majority of them suffered from anxiety particularly out of fear for their children and the increasing hate speech to which the children were subjected. Approximately 40 per cent of the women surveyed had reported discrimination based on nationality and almost 100 per cent based on gender. In 2005, Buraku women had conducted their own questionnaire with the participation of nearly 1,500 women. The results had found discrepancies between their status in the fields of literacy, employment, discrimination and domestic violence and that of women from non-minority communities. According to a 2004 survey of Ainu women, only 36 per cent of them attended high school and those who did not cited poverty and the discriminatory attitude of school administrators and classmates as their main reasons for not attending.

49.Owing to the revocation of the system of status of residence, migrant women refused to report violations of their rights to the police out of fear that their right to remain in Japan would be rescinded. Reports had also been received about inequalities in access to social security, particularly for non-nationals with disabilities. She noted with regret that the Supreme Court of Japan refused the appointment of non-national attorneys to the post of Conciliation Commissioner of Domestic Relations, which was to the detriment of non-national women suffering domestic abuse. She asked how Japan ensured that sufficient attention was paid to persons suffering from intersecting forms of discrimination; how the Government planned to collect relevant data disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, disability and age and what remedies were in place to ensure the equal rights and opportunities of discriminated groups in society.

The meeting was suspended at 12.25 p.m. and resumed at 12.40 p.m.

50.Mr. Otaka (Japan) said that he had personally participated in discussions on the interpretation of article 1 of the Convention with regard to the term “descent”. The term would continue to be interpreted in the same way as it had been since the ratification by Japan of the Convention.

51.Mr. Sugiura (Japan) said that Japan maintained its reservations to article 4 (a) and (b) of the Convention and, therefore, was under no obligation to criminalize hate speech or crime. Nevertheless, it had taken steps to legislate against such crimes through the adoption of the Hate Speech Elimination Act.

52.Mr. Otaka (Japan) said that he understood the need for a victim-oriented approach when addressing the issue of comfort women. The Japanese Government was doing its best to cooperate with the Government of South Korea to that end, as demonstrated by the 2015 agreement between the two countries. However, it must be noted that there had been misinformation and fabrication of facts by the media or certain authors. The Government of Japan strongly opposed the use of the term “sexual slavery” in relation to the issue of comfort women.

53.He stressed that there was nothing racially discriminatory about the decision of the Government to suspend funding for Korean schools. The decision had been taken because those schools were under the control of Chosen Soren and were not appropriately using the State funds provided to them. The Government believed that efforts should be taken to eliminate hate speech by adopting a bottom-up approach. The pamphlet and comic book that had been produced for that purpose was an attempt to educate people about the hurt that their words might cause another person.

54.Ms. Sakai (Azuma) (Japan) said that a public servant involved in decision-making must have Japanese citizenship. Mediators working in family courts were also required to have Japanese citizenship as they were considered to have an impact on the formation of national ideas.

55.Mr. Iriyama (Japan) said that Ainu remains were kept in national history museums and more information in that regard was available on the website of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Science and Technology. The reduction in the Ainu population might be a result of the ageing population, the migration of Ainu persons or their lack of participation in the national census. More and more Ainu were attending high school thanks to the subsidies provided by the Government.

56.Mr. Otaka (Japan) thanked the Committee for listening to their responses and he assured all members that his delegation would work hard to meet the deadline for providing written responses to the remaining questions of the Committee.

The meeting rose at 1 p.m.