A/HRC/31/74 its inception; an optional protocol adopted at the same time as the Convention itself; and an optional protocol adopted at a later stage. He recalled that the timing of these three decisions had no bearing on the effectiveness of the procedure, and that it was ultimately an optional and not mandatory procedure. The expert also pointed to the fact that to date, no inter-State communication has ever been submitted to the CERD, or to any other UN human rights committee. Inter-State communications were a mandatory procedure in CERD, and yet no complaints had been received from States. He explained that this pointed to the fact that structural and timing aspects of article 14 individual complaints procedure did not have an effect on its effectiveness. He advised that greater awareness be created about the existence of the procedure. 12. In response to the question about his views on the inquiry procedure, he noted that the introduction of such procedure was a standard request of the CERD. He added that in his view, it was more important that States parties submit their reports to the CERD, as so many were very late or had never submitted a report to the Committee. 13. The representative of Belgium said that implementation was key to the effectiveness of ICERD and that States parties should report better and in due time. Belgium also noted that Mr. Bossuyt’s presentation indicated that the acceptance of Article 14 was geographically unequally distributed amongst regions and the representative inquired whether this could be improved. The expert agreed that the acceptance of article 14 by Member States was unequal, noting the high number of WEOG Member States parties, as compared to other regions. There were no acceptances in the Caribbean region at all and a very limited number in the African and Asian region. However, he was unable to provide a reason as to why that was the case, stating the States parties were better placed to do so. 14. Asked about regional mechanisms by the Belgian representative, the expert said that in his view those mechanisms were well developed in Europe, and also in Latin America. There was also an African human rights mechanism; however, there was no functioning regional mechanism in Asia. 15. The representative of the United States inquired about Mr. Bossuyt’s reference that the ICERD was considered more than a foreign policy instrument than a human rights document as well as the role of civil society and non-governmental organizations when it came to the effectiveness of CERD. Mr. Bossuyt noted that the role of civil society could not be overstated, as strong non-governmental organizations had a significant role to play in the individual complaints procedure and the implementation of the ICERD as illustrated by his case law analysis. He added that Governments often initially expressed firm commitment at the international level as a political expression, but did not always have a strong influence in the domestic legal system. The provisions of ICERD should however be integrated into domestic law. CERD regularly asked States if they have done so. One of the standard questions was therefore if a State had a comprehensive discrimination law against racial discrimination. 16. When asked about his opinion on the multitude of possible avenues for individual redress for violations of racial discrimination including the Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights, by the Chair-Rapporteur, the expert said that different institutions could indeed arrive at different decisions, which was the inherent danger of the current system. CERD consequently believed that the establishment of a single unified body that dealt with complaints to all treaty bodies would be an improvement. 17. The Chair-Rapporteur inquired about an analysis of type of cases that succeeded under the article 14 procedure. He stated that confidence in the process was not bolstered by the figures and statistics provided in Mr. Bossuyt’s presentation, and underlined that a great deal was dependant on the national law and domestic systems in place. Mr. Bossuyt 23