A/HRC/31/74 which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin”) in 6 decisions. 5. Mr. Bossuyt stated that article 14 has been characterized by one prominent professor Theo Van Boven, as “one of the most under-utilized provisions of ICERD.” Professor Van Boven provided two explanations for Article 14’s under-utilization: (1) “many states have always considered ICERD more a (foreign) policy instrument than a domestic rights document,” and, (2) “the sheer lack of knowledge and information about the existence of article 14 as a possible recourse is a major impediment.” Mr. Bossuyt explained that the most striking feature of the individual communications submitted to the CERD is the foreign origin of the authors of those communications. However, only in a minority of cases (18), the author of the communication had a foreign nationality. In the majority of the cases, the authors were nationals of the State party. 6. Mr. Bossuyt described the follow up procedure on individual communications. Following the example of the Human Rights Committee, a procedure on follow-up to communications was formally established on 15 August 2005, when the Committee created the ability for Special Rapporteurs to follow-up on the Committee’s suggestions and recommendations to States parties following a communication to CERD (rule 95 of the CERD Rules of Procedure). Since 2006, the Committee included a chapter on follow-up to individual communications, including sometimes in an annex, a table showing a complete picture of follow-up replies from States parties in relation to cases in which the Committee found violations of the Convention or provided suggestions or recommendations in cases of non-violation. With respect to the 10 individual communications in which the committee did not find a violation of the Convention, the Committee nevertheless made recommendations. 7. Mr. Bossuyt stated that Governments concerned are generally forthcoming in disseminating the opinion of the Committee. In some cases, they also took measures to amend the applicable legal provisions. In a few cases, they accepted to award compensation to the authors for the expenses they had made for legal assistance in submitting the communications. Up to now, no State party accepted to award any compensation for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage. 8. He concluded by stating that in 2012, the CERD, acting upon a recommendation from its Working group on communications, proposed the creation of a joint treaty body working group on communications, composed of experts of different treaty bodies to ensure consistency of jurisprudence among treaty bodies and reinforce the justiciability and interdependence of all human rights. It would lead to more coherent outputs and to better aligned working approaches of all treaty bodies dealing with communications. Mr. Bossuyt stated that in its resolution 68/268 entitled “Strengthening and enhancing the effective functioning of the human rights treaty body system” adopted on 9 April 2014, the UN General Assembly did not act upon that recommendation. 9. The representative of Pakistan on behalf of the OIC noted that since only 48 decisions had been issued by the CERD the effectiveness of the procedure should be questioned and asked how the procedure could be strengthened to ensure complaints could be received. The representative also invited Mr. Bossuyt’s views on the inquiry procedure as compared to the complaints procedure. 10. The representative of Cuba expressed appreciation for Mr. Bossuyt’s comparative analysis and asked about recommendations to enhance its effectiveness. 11. Mr. Bossuyt noted that indeed, the number of decisions under the individual complaints procedure was small. The effectiveness of the procedure however was not related to the structure of the Convention. There were in general three distinct ways to legislate individual complaint mechanisms: integration of the article into the Convention at 22