A/HRC/31/74 Annex I Summaries of the expert presentations and initial discussions on the agenda topics A. Assessment of the use of the complaint mechanism under article 14 1. On 13 July, at the 2nd meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee, Marc Bossuyt, Member of the CERD, gave a presentation on the assessment of the use of the complaint mechanism under Article 14 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). He noted that the ICERD adopted on 21 December 1965, was the first human rights treaty adopted in the framework of the United Nations providing for a mechanism of international supervision. At present, 177 States are parties to that Convention. 2. The ICERD set up the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) , composed of 18 independent experts, which is competent to receive periodic reports, to be submitted biannually by the States parties (Article 9), and inter-State communications (Article 11).2 The CERD is also the first UN human rights committee which has been empowered, by Article 14 of the ICERD, to receive individual communications against States parties having made a specific declaration to that effect. 3. Mr. Bossuyt discussed individual communications before the ICERD. He explained that article 14 of the ICERD provides for an optional declaration by which the States parties may recognize the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals or groups of individuals within their jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by that State party of any of the rights set forth in that Convention. At present, 57 States have made that declaration. 22 belonging to the Group of Western European and Other States, 16 to the Group of Eastern European States, 11 to the Group of LatinAmerican and Caribbean States, 5 to the Group of African States and 3 to the Group of Asian States. To date, only 48 communications submitted under Article 14 of the ICERD led to a decision by the CERD. According to Article 14, section 7(b), of the ICERD, the CERD will forward “suggestions and recommendations, if any, to the State Party concerned and to the petitioner.” The communications which have led to such “suggestions and recommendations” by the CERD were directed against (only) 12 of the 57 States parties to the ICERD having recognized the competence of the Committee to consider individual communications. 4. He noted that article of the ICERD which has most frequently been found to be violated is Article 6 (“effective protection and remedies […] against any acts of racial discrimination which violate his human rights and fundamental freedoms contrary to this Convention”) in 11 decisions, followed by Article 2 (“to pursue […] a policy of eliminating racial discrimination)” in 8 decisions, Article 5 (“to guarantee the right of everyone […] to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of […] the right to freedom of movement and residence [(d), (i), …], the right to work [(e), (i), …], the right to housing [(e), (iii), …], the right to education and training [(e), (v), … or] the right of access to any place or service [(f)]”) in 6 decisions and Article 4 (condemnation of “all propaganda and all organizations 2 Up to now, no inter-State communication has ever been submitted to the CERD, nor to any other UN human rights committee. 21