Sixty-ninth session

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 1770th MEETING

Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,on Tuesday, 8 August 2006, at 3 p.m.

Chairperson: Mr. de GOUTTES

CONTENTS

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

Combined sixteenth to eighteenth periodic reports of Mongolia

The meeting was called to order at 3.15 p.m.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS, COMMENTS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION (agenda item 4) (continued)

Combined sixteenth to eighteenth periodic reports of Mongolia (CERD/C/476/Add.6; HRI/CORE/MNG/2005; list of questions for discussion, document without a symbol distributed at the meeting, in English only)

1.At the invitation of the Chairperson, the members of the delegation of Mongolia took places at the Committee table.

2.Mr. ODBAYAR (Mongolia) said that Mongolia had always adhered scrupulously to the obligations incumbent upon it under the Convention since the signing of this instrument in 1969. For fifteen years, Mongolia had been taking significant steps to comply with international human rights standards. Thus, in 1992, it had adopted a new democratic constitution which enshrined human rights and the supremacy of law. Article 14 of the Constitution of Mongolia stipulated that all persons lawfully residing within Mongolia were equal before the law and the courts irrespective of their nationality, language, race, sex, ethnic and social origin, property, occupation and position, religion, opinion or education (para. 24).

3.Furthermore, in compliance with the recommendations formulated in the Programme of Action of the World Conference on Human Rights which was held in Vienna in 1993, the Mongolian Government had in 2003 set out a National Human Rights Action Programme based upon international instruments relating to human rights, which provided, in particular, that measures appropriate to its implementation be updated every four years. Mongolia, which had actively participated in the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in 2000, had defined its own Millennium goals and was striving to promote the sociо-economic prosperity and well-being of its citizens, which would undoubtedly be conducive to further improvement of the human rights situation in the country.

4.Mr. Odbayar stressed that in order to comply with international standards on human rights Mongolia had in 2001 established an independent body – the National Human Rights Commission – which regularly submitted its recommendations and observations on questions pertaining to human rights to the Parliament, Cabinet of Ministers and other government bodies. In conclusion, Mr. Odbayar pointed out that no cases of racial discrimination had been recorded in the country.

5.Mr. GANBAT (Mongolia), replying to the first question from the list of questions for discussion, pointed out that the international instruments to which Mongolia was a party were, with the exception of those which conflicted with the Constitution of Mongolia, self-executing in the country on an equal footing with domestic legislation. The law provided that in cases where the provisions of international treaties were inconsistent with domestic legislation, those provisions should prevail.

6.On the question of the involvement of civil society organizations in the implementation of the Convention, Mr. Ganbat said that Article 16 of the Constitution recognized for all citizens the right to form a party or other mass organizations on the basis of shared social and personal interests and opinions, as well as the right to freedom of association in such organizations. This same Article also recognized the right of every individual to freedom of thought, opinion and expression, speech, press and peaceful assembly. The law of 1997 regulating non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had provided that all citizens and legal persons had the right, individually or collectively, to establish non-governmental organizations, and that foreign nationals and stateless persons lawfully residing in the country also had the right to establish and join such organizations. 8,000 NGOs were currently registered with the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs. They contributed actively to the implementation of the Convention and were widely involved in the implementation of international law and of domestic legislation concerning the protection and promotion of human rights.

7.With regard to the composition of the population, Mr. Ganbat pointed out that population censuses were conducted every ten years. According to data obtained in the course of the last census, in 2000, there were two main ethnic groups in Mongolia, the Khalkhas and the Kazakhs, as well as 15 ethnic minorities who spoke Mongolian and other regional dialects. Other ethnic groups, representing 4.5% of the population, included, notably, the Eljigen, Tsaatan, Hamnigan, Hoshuud, Sartuul, Tuva, Shantuu and Halimag. In addition, there were 26, 282 foreign nationals and stateless persons resident in Mongolia, and their legal status was regulated by the 1993 Law on the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens (para. 33). However, since Mongolia had not yet ratified the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Mongolian legislation did not contain a definition of the term ‘refugee’.

8.In response to question 4, concerning the existence of a definition of racial discrimination in domestic legislation, Mr. Ganbat explained that, since the Convention applied in Mongolia on an equal footing with domestic legislation, the definition contained in Article 1 of this international instrument was applicable in domestic law. Furthermore, Article 14 of the Constitution, cited above, listed grounds on which all discrimination was prohibited, including ethnic origin, language, race, social origin, status and religion.

9.In addition, Mr. Ganbat explained that Mongolia was carrying out thorough preparatory work with a view to imminent ratification of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and that there was broad consensus on the issue of accession to this instrument among both the public and the government authorities. Mongolia was cooperating closely with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), representatives of which had visited Mongolia for the first time in 2000: this had permitted the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the High Commission and the Government concerning a plan of action aimed at promoting the adoption of a law on refugees and at building up domestic capacity to receive refugees.

10.The representative of Mongolia indicated that his country had not yet arrived at a decision on ratification of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons or of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Information on this question would appear in the next periodic report.

11.Responding to the question of whether Mongolia envisaged adopting specific penal legislation designed to declare illegal and to prohibit all organizations which promoted and incited racial discrimination, in conformance with article 4(b) of the Convention, Mr. Ganbat emphasized that in accordance with the Constitution and with the Convention, which was self-executing in his country, any act based on racial discrimination was illegal. Moreover, under article 20 (1) of the new Criminal Code, adopted in 2002, physical persons were subject to criminal liability in cases of such an offence and thus exposed to penal sanctions. If the offence in question concerned legal persons, these were subject to administrative liability and were liable to be dissolved.

12.Responding to question 8 from the list of questions for discussion, relating to the exercise by non-citizens of rights enshrined in article 16 of the Constitution, Mr. Ganbat stressed that Mongolian legislation was compatible with General Recommendation XXX of the Committee, and that no provision of domestic law restricted the inalienable rights of persons, which also applied to non-citizens and stateless persons. The status of foreigners was defined by the 1993 Law on the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens, in particular by articles 8 to 11. Furthermore, under the new Civil Code of 2002, Mongolian citizens, foreigners and stateless persons were considered to be equal before the law.

13.In response to question 9 from the list of questions for discussion, relating to measures adopted by the State party in response to the Human Rights Commission’s report on the situation of the Tsaatan minority, Mr. Ganbat stated that shortly after publication of this report the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science had organized jointly with the Human Rights Commission a national conference on the situation of this minority. Following this conference, in December 2005, an ordinance had been enacted providing for implementation of a Tuvan language teaching programme containing a whole range of measures aimed at promoting the culture of the Tsaatan minority.

14.Referring to question 10, in which the Rapporteur had requested statistical data on the presence of members of national minorities in Parliament, in the Government (at national and local levels), in the judiciary and in the police, Mr. Ganbat stressed that all Mongolian citizens possessing the relevant qualifications had access, free of discrimination of any kind, to public office. Thus, since the parliamentary elections of 2004, the 76 seats in the Parliament had been divided between the representatives of nine ethnic groups, namely the Khalkhas (89.5%), the Kazakhs, Durveds and Bayads (3.9% each), the Buriads (2.6%) and four other minorities (1.3% each). The Cabinet of Ministers numbered 17 members, representing four ethnic groups, namely: the Khalkhas (76.47 %), the Durveds (11.76 %), the Bayads (5.88 %) and the Darkhads (5.88 %).

15.In local government, the 44 senior officials in the provinces and in the capital represented six ethnic groups: Khalkhas (84%), Kazakhs and Darigangas (4.5% each), Durveds, Buriads and Bayads (2.3% each). The 409 judges in Mongolia came from 11 minorities: Khalkhas (84.8 %) and ten other ethnic groups (15.2 %). Lastly, 12 ethnic groups were represented in the police, the proportion of non-Khalkhas standing at 5.1 %. However, the percentages varied depending on the province concerned: for example, in the province of Bayan-Ulgii, the population of which was predominantly Kazakh, 93.3% of government officials were Kazakhs.

16.Responding to question 11 from the list of questions for discussion, in which explanations were requested regarding certain provisions of the 1993 Law on the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens, in particular those provisions imposing numerical limits and the prohibition on engaging in political activities or practising a religion inconsistent with Mongolian customs and laws, Mr. Ganbat explained that, since Mongolia had only 2.5 million citizens and was still a developing country, the State had considered it appropriate to set a numerical limit in order to safeguard national independence and security and to preserve the national culture. In turn, the purpose of the ban affecting the political activities and religious freedom of foreigners was to enable Mongolian citizens to exercise their political rights.

17.With regard to question 12, relating to rules and procedures applicable to asylum seekers, Mr. Ganbat explained that as Mongolia had not yet acceded to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, it had neither a legal definition of nor detailed regulations concerning the status of refugees. Nonetheless, the Government cooperated closely with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in examining refugees’ requests for asylum, so as to avoid any human rights violations. Detailed statistics on requests for asylum would be included in the nineteenth periodic report.

18.Responding to question 13 concerning the problem of trafficking, human trafficking and especially trafficking in women and children, Mr. Ganbat said that, according to the statistics, victims of trafficking did not appear to have been targeted on the grounds of belonging to any particular ethnic group. Although the criminal law contained provisions banning trafficking and the first case of this kind had been heard by a court in 2006, it had to be recognised that urgent measures needed to be taken, knowing that the State lacked the experience, the means and the financial resources to combat this phenomenon. This was why the Government had adopted a plan of action, aimed at building up the country’s capacity to combat transnational organised crime, which was scheduled to run until 2008. Training workshops on this issue had recently been organised by the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs and the Human Rights Commission.

19.With regard to question 14, on measures taken to combat poverty affecting ethnic minorities living in rural and remote areas, Mr. Ganbat said that the Mongolian Government shared the Millennium Goals and had taken measures aimed at developing the zones and regions concerned. In addition, in 2003 a law on the administration and financing of the development of the regions had been passed, on the basis of which the Parliament had adopted a discussion paper on regional development. In conformance with this document, the Government had taken upon itself the task of reducing differences in development between the regions and to this end had established centres to promote development in six regions of the country.

20.Responding to question 15, relating to the provisions of article 11.3 of the Law on the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens, cited in the report (para. 55), Mr. Ganbat clarified that this article did not aim to restrict the rights of foreigners, but should be interpreted as prohibiting foreigners from changing employer without informing the central government agency responsible for employment.

21.Referring to question 16, on the status of the languages of ethnic groups in Mongolian legislation, Mr. Ganbat indicated that the Constitution prohibited discrimination on the grounds of language and recognised the culture of ethnic minorities living in Mongolia. Under the 2003 law on the official language of education (para. 68 of the report), national minorities were entitled to receive education in their own language. Thus, Kazakhs, 90% of whom lived in the province of Bayan Ulgii, had access to education in their own language; school textbooks had been translated into Kazakh and Kazakh language teachers had been trained. Given that Kazakhs constituted 97 % of the population of this province, they were able to use their own language when addressing administrative bodies and the courts.

22.As regards question 17, relating to the rights of minorities to create and use their own media and to the number of such media channels broadcasting information in minority languages, Mr. Ganbat pointed out that the law recognised the right of all citizens to set up their own private radio stations or television channels. There were two Kazakh-language newspapers, founded in 1941 and 2003 respectively, and there was also one radio station broadcasting programmes in Mongolian and Kazakh in the provinces where Kazakhs lived.

23.Addressing questions 18 and 19, relating to the implementation of article 6 of the Convention, which concern the absence according to the report (para. 20) of cases of discrimination in Mongolia and the remedies available to victims of racial discrimination, Mr. Ganbat referred to the fact that Mongolia was a developing country, where bureaucracy and administrative inefficiency meant that not a single case of racial discrimination had yet been recorded. Nonetheless, measures were being taken to improve the effectiveness of administrative bodies and extend the capacity of the police, prosecutors, judges and employees of other government agencies.

24.As far as the legal remedies available to victims of racial discrimination were concerned, the economic problems facing the Government made it difficult for it to offer support to victims of racial discrimination. However, Mongolia intended to establish national mechanisms for victim support. In the meantime, victims of discrimination could turn to the non-governmental organisations established in Mongolia for the protection of human rights.

25.With regard to the group of questions relating to the implementation of article 7 of the Convention, Mr. Ganbat pointed out in response to question 20, on the inclusion of programmes to raise awareness of discrimination and interethnic tolerance in the school curriculum, that the issue of racial discrimination was not specifically referred to in school curricula but that nonetheless at all stages of education pupils were encouraged to understand the importance of peaceful coexistence between ethnic groups and of respect for others without discrimination. Moreover, during their studies of the history, geography and culture of Mongolia, pupils received information on the history, culture and way of life of the country’s various ethnic groups.

26.Responding to question 21, on training activities intended to raise awareness of the provisions of the Convention among members of the judiciary and law enforcement officials, teachers, social workers and other public officials, Mr. Ganbat said that in the three state universities and the 18 private universities and colleges that existed in Mongolia, the issue of discrimination was touched upon as part of the study of compulsory subjects such as constitutional law, world political and legal history, human rights and criminal law, international public law and administrative law. Furthermore, the National Legal Training Centre endeavoured to provide lawyers and law students with information on and knowledge of international public law.

27.In response to question 22, concerning measures taken by the State party to disseminate information on the Convention and to raise awareness among the population of the issue of racial discrimination, Mr. Ganbat said that from 2004 onward the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had published in a special edition of the Official Journal all the international treaties to which Mongolia was a party, including the Convention. The National Legal Training Centre had published various periodicals and other works containing information on human rights. Finally, to mark Human Rights Day, which was celebrated each year on 10 December, a large number of activities to raise awareness of human rights were organised by various public bodies, civil society associations, educational establishments and private organizations.

28.Responding to question 23, Mr. Ganbat said that Mongolia had ratified the Convention in 1969 and could envisage, at the appropriate time, recognising the competence of the Committee to receive individual complaints, as provided for under article 14 of the Convention.

29.Mr. TANG Chengyuan (Country Rapporteur) said that he was convinced that the dialogue with the very high-ranking Mongolian delegation, which had responded to all the questions which had been put to it in writing, would be a fruitful one. He recalled that in its concluding observations on Mongolia’s previous report (CERD/C/304/Add.73) the Committee had particularly recommended that Mongolia adopt comprehensive legislation on ethnic minorities and on combating discrimination on grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin; continue providing training programmes for law enforcement officials; continue exploring ways of providing specific protection to all ethnic groups living in its territory; include in its next report statistical data on the socio-economic situation of the different ethnic minority groups; take the necessary measures to comply fully with the provisions of article 4 of the Convention; mention in its next report the relevant articles of the Criminal Code; initiate a review of its civil and criminal legislation so as to bring these into full conformity with the principles and provisions of the Convention, in particular articles 5 and 6.

30.Mr. Tang Chengyuan quoted widely from the report under consideration passages containing items of information which were important for a proper understanding of the situation in Mongolia, having regard to the implementation of the Convention in that country. The issues these items related to included population, equal rights and the compliance of domestic law with international standards (CERD/C/476/Add.6, paras. 6, 8 and 9).

31.Mr. Tang Chengyuan, invoking large parts of Mongolia’s core report (HRI/CORE/MNG/2005, para. 59), also recalled that the State party had ratified a range of international human rights instruments, which, though not directly applicable in domestic law, nonetheless prevailed over domestic laws.

32.The Country Rapporteur likewise mentioned the different legislative provisions cited in the report which permitted Mongolia to apply article 4 of the Convention prohibiting all racist propaganda (CERD/C/476.Add.6, paras. 12 and 18); these provisions were very interesting. Even though the delegation had pointed out that in Mongolia responsibility lay with the individual, racist organisations could not be held responsible as such. The question therefore was what the state would do if an organisation practised racial discrimination.

33.The Country Rapporteur considered that article 16 of the Constitution had the same purpose as article 5 of the Convention, as did the 2001 Law on Employment, the 2002 Law on Education and the Law on the State Official Language which implemented it. Furthermore, the provisions of the Civil Code of 2002 granting equal status to all citizens, the revised procedures put in place for applications for citizenship and the Law on Administrative Procedures, giving citizens and legal entities the possibility of lodging a complaint against the administration if they considered that an administrative action had infringed their rights, also enabled Mongolia to implement in full article 5 of the Convention.

34.Knowing that, since its creation in 1992, the Constitutional Court had received more than 700 complaints from Mongolian citizens, 300 of which related to violations of rights, and had also ruled on 10 complaints in respect of which it had established violations of human rights enshrined in the Constitution, the Country Rapporteur said that he would particularly like to know whether these actions had included cases of racial discrimination, and whether the plaintiffs had had the benefit of the services of a lawyer.

35.Knowing also that in 2002 Mongolia had established a national centre for legal and judicial research, training and information and that it celebrated Human Rights Day each year, the Country Rapporteur wanted the delegation to clarify whether this centre, or any other body, was involved in training representatives of the judiciary and law enforcement officials and raising their awareness of international treaties.

36.Mr. Tang Chengyuan considered that, taken as a whole, the legislation in force conformed with the Convention and that information originating from external sources had indicated significant progress, which was encouraging. However, the Committee still had too little concrete information at its disposal to form an accurate picture of the situation. The next reports should, for example, contain concrete data on minorities. Furthermore, the State party could hardly simply declare that racial discrimination did not exist on its territory, knowing that there were proven cases, not counting the cases of discrimination on religious grounds, particularly against Christians, which had been pointed out in the report of the 61st session of the Commission on Human Rights, nor the cases of discrimination against women referred to in documents of the Human Rights Committee and of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Moreover, a non-governmental organisation had drawn the attention of the Committee to the fact that certain teachers continued to have a discriminatory attitude toward Kazakh pupils who came from rural areas. Finally, Mr. Tang Chengyuan considered that it was difficult to believe that certain minorities, living in remote areas and in under extremely difficult economic conditions, actually enjoyed equal status, since in practice racial discrimination could take very different forms, direct or indirect.

37.The Country Rapporteur said that the application of laws presupposed the establishment of bodies which were duly authorised and equipped with adequate resources, both financial and human. It was the duty of the state to ensure that officials knew the laws and to fight against corruption. Without underestimating the economic difficulties confronting Mongolia, the Country Rapporteur nonetheless considered that the training of government officials was of cardinal importance and that the State party should continue its commitment and efforts in this area. It would be useful if the next report contained more detailed information on this point.

38.Mr. VALENCIA RODRIGUEZ emphasised that application of the Convention was all the more important in Mongolia since it was a multi-ethnic country composed of two majority national groups and 15 national minorities, which varied greatly in size and included two groups of Russian and Chinese origin whose numbers were steadily declining. He noted with interest the information according to which foreigners and stateless persons enjoyed the same rights and freedoms as Mongolian citizens. However, given that item 11 of the report stated that the rights and freedoms of foreign nationals and stateless persons could be restricted in cases where this was necessary to protect the rights and fundamental freedoms of the citizens of Mongolia, Mr. Valencia Rodriguez wanted the delegation to explain the nature of these restrictions, the circumstances justifying them and the rules governing their application and also to give examples of cases in which they had been applied.

39.Mr. Valencia Rodriguez noted that in 2002 the Parliament had adopted the new Criminal Code, which provided sanctions for racial discrimination and genocide, but did not define racial discrimination as fully as articles 1 and 4 of the Convention. Likewise, article 86.1 of the Criminal Code and subparagraph 5 of article 7 of the Law on Advertising conformed to subparagraph a) of article 4 of the Convention but not to subparagraph b) thereof: this should prompt the authorities to be more vigilant with regard to the situation of minority ethnic groups, foreigners and stateless persons. Mr. Valencia Rodriguez noted the interesting information given on the right of every citizen to participate in the conduct of public affairs directly or through representative bodies, but he wished to obtain more detailed data on the level of representation of minority ethnic groups in the organs of state, in particular in the State Great Hural, and also to know whether this representation was regulated by a law or other statutory provision.

40.With regard to the right to nationality, Mr. Valencia Rodriguez asked whether all persons born on Mongolian territory were entitled to Mongolian nationality if their parents were foreign nationals, permanently or temporarily resident in the country’s territory, or stateless persons, and whether a foreigner marrying a person of Mongolian nationality automatically acquired Mongolian nationality through the marriage; under the same conditions.

41.Mr. Valencia Rodriguez said that the information contained in paragraph 55 of the report in relation to the employment and commercial and industrial activities of foreign nationals and stateless persons was very important. The requirement to be a resident for “a long period” in order to engage in certain types of activity was highly subjective, and the question therefore arose as to what period of time was sufficient, and for how long foreigners were prohibited from changing professional activity.

42.Concerning the right to housing, Mr. Valencia Rodriguez said that it would be useful to have additional information on what kind of access foreigners, permanently or temporarily resident in the country, as well as stateless persons and persons belonging to minority ethnic groups, had to housing, medical care, education and training.

43.Mr. Valencia Rodriguez said that he would like to know whether foreigners, minority groups and stateless persons benefited from the numerous provisions relating to medical and health services. Furthermore, did they benefit from the free basic education for all, without any discrimination? Finally, to what extent did the different ethnic groups, which undoubtedly had their own cultural characteristics, take part in cultural, artistic and scientific activities?

44.Mr. Valencia Rodriguez recommended that the State party ensure that the Convention be distributed as widely as possible, in particular in the principal languages of the minority ethnic groups, and that the report under consideration be made public together with the concluding observations of the Committee.

45.Mr. AVTONOMOV said that Mongolia had taken numerous positive steps in the area of human rights, the most important of which was the creation of the National Human Rights Commission. He welcomed the close cooperation which existed between Mongolia and the Russian Federation on issues relating to minorities and expressed a desire to obtain more detailed information on this matter. Noting from paragraph 11 of the report that it was prohibited for foreign nationals to campaign against the national unity of Mongolia and to promote violence, pornography and the use of narcotics, Mr. Avtonomov asked whether this prohibition applied only to foreigners.

46.Mr. Avtonomov wanted to know if NGOs had participated in drawing up the report and, if so, in what way. He noted from paragraph 68 that Mongolia ensured that instruction was provided in the language of the minority which represented the majority of the population in a given place, and Mr. Avtonomov asked whether this implied that a minority had to constitute more than 50% of the local population in order to benefit from instruction in its own language. Finally, he pointed out that the absence of complaints about discrimination did not necessarily signify that discrimination did not exist in the State party, but that it might mean that citizens were not informed of the possibilities available to them for lodging complaints or that they feared reprisals.

47.Mr. KJAERUM welcomed the establishment of the National Human Rights Commission, which was already doing extraordinary work in terms of promoting and protecting human rights, and asked if the Commission had been consulted during the drafting of the report under consideration. He considered that certain provisions mentioned in paragraph 11 of the report did not conform to international human rights standards. He asked, for example, why foreign nationals could not be employed full-time in the civil service, why they could not join political parties and why a difference was made between foreigners and citizens as far as the prohibition on promoting violence, pornography and the use of narcotics was concerned.

48.Mr. PILLAI welcomed the major role played by the National Human Rights Commission in the Asia-Pacific region. He wished to know how Mongolia planned to make use of the contribution of the National Human Rights Commission to improve its fulfilment of its obligations under international human rights instruments. He also wished to obtain specific information on the way in which different ethnic groups could exercise their rights to education and health, and he referred to information according to which certain small minority groups living in remote regions of the country, for example the Xotons, had great difficulty obtaining a school education for their children and accessing health-care facilities.

49.Ms. DAH noted that there were 201 television channels and radio stations in Mongolia, and that some 1,493 newspapers were published (paragraph 82 of the report), which was a very impressive figure, considering that Mongolia had just 2.5 million inhabitants. She wished to know whether any organs of political parties featured among these television channels and newspapers. Noting that the adult literacy rate quoted in the report stood at 95 %, Ms. Dah wanted to know how the education system had succeeded in obtaining such good results. She also wanted to know the legal definition of the term “indigenous citizen” used in paragraphs 26-29 of the report. Finally, she wanted to know what the minimum legal age for marriage was and asked if it was the same for both boys and girls.

50.Mr. YUTZIS shared the views of the members of the Committee who were concerned by certain provisions, mentioned in paragraph 11 of the report, relating to foreign nationals. The fact that foreigners could not participate in political activities constituted discrimination, in his opinion. Moreover, he wondered why the prohibition on promoting violence, pornography and the use of narcotics applied only to foreigners. Furthermore, he wished to know what the expression “religion inconsistent with the traditional customs and laws” (paragraph 11) meant. Noting that Mongolia recognised the right of members of national minorities to carry on their own educational activities (paragraph 15 of the report), Mr. Yutzis wanted to know if a member of a minority could teach in schools other than those reserved for minorities.

The meeting rose at 6.05 p.m.