SUBJECT: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

PROJECT TOPIC:
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

SUBMITTED BY
RITAM GIRIYA
ROLL NO. 1227
3 YEAR, 5th SEMESTER, B.B.A.LL.B (HONS.)

SUBMITTED TO
MRS. SUGANDHA SINHA
FACULTY OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA

OCTOBER, 2016

~1~
 Acknowledgement

We would like to express our profound gratitude to our project

guide
Prof, who has so ably guided our research project with her
vast fund of knowledge, advice and constant encouragement,
which made us, thinks past the difficulties and led us to
successful completion of the project.
We have tried to cover all the aspects of the project & every
care has been taken to make the project faultless. We have
tried to write the project in our words as far as possible and
simplified all the concepts by presenting it in a different form.
Well look forward in future for such type of project. We are
eagerly waiting for fruitful comments and constructive
suggestions.

THANKING YOU

~2~
 Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 5

2. HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE CONFLICT....................... 7

3. ESTABLISHMENT OF ICTY.................................................................... 9

4. HISTORY OF THE COURT.......11

5. LANDMARK CASES.12

7. CONCLUSIONS ...16

BIBLIOGRAPHY..17

~3~
 Objective of the Study
The Researcher has to find the provisions relating to Freedom of Press

To study and understand the proper meaning of ICTY

To determine the strategy of ICTY

Research Methodology
In this project, the researcher has relied on the Doctrinal Method, which is primarily based
upon books, journals, news, articles etc. A comprehensive study is made in order to arrive at
analytical & critical support of the arguments. The segments are structured and written actively.
The writing style is descriptive as well as analytical. This project has been done after a thorough
research based upon intrinsic and extrinsic aspect of the assigned topic.

CHAPTER-I

~4~
 INTRODUCTION
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 1965 and the Convention
entered into force on 4 January 1969.1 The Convention is the most comprehensive international
legal instrument combatting racism and racially discriminatory practices. It requires far-
reaching policy measures aimed at eliminating racial discrimination and practices in the
political, economic, social and cultural sphere, outlawing hate speech and racist organisations,
providing redress and reparation to victims of racial discrimination, and encouraging the
development of education programmes to combat prejudices which lead to racial discrimination.
The CERD has now gained more than thirty years of experience as a treaty supervisory body
and the Convention is ratified by 165 States (as of December 9, 2002).

The World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related
Intolerance held in Durban (August 31 - September 8, 2001) reaffirmed the importance of the
international legal framework as embodied in the International Convention and monitored by
the CERD. The Conference urged States to give due consideration to the observations and
recommendations of the CERD and, to that effect, States should consider setting up appropriate
national monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to
follow these observations and recommendations.

This paper will first address several themes and issues of an historical, contextual and socio-
political nature which have had and still have an impact on the modus operandi of the CERD.
Among these themes and issues is the perception that racism and racial discrimination are
practised elsewhere by others. Linked with this perception are the notions of denial and
acknowledgement. Further, attention will be paid to the diminishing role of the State in these
days of increasing privatisation and reliance on the market economy.

Thereafter, a number of other aspects will be addressed, in particular, related to the text of the
Convention, its scope and its legal interpretation. Further, the CERD's thematic involvement in

1 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx

~5~
discrimination against Roma and discrimination based on descent will be highlighted. 2
Moreover, also in relation to the Convention, the question of redress and reparation to victims
and the coexistence of global and European standards and systems to combat racial
discrimination will be discussed.

There is a tendency in many societies to regard problems of racism and racial discrimination -
and more generally problems of human rights - as evils prevailing in other societies - as
problems occurring elsewhere. When the Convention was drawn up, this attitude was
predominant in the minds of diplomats and politicians. Racism and racial discrimination were
seen in the context of white colonial rule and as inherent in patterns of white domination, in
particular embodied in the policies and practices of apartheid in South Africa. Indeed, it is
undeniable that a close link existed between colonial rule, apartheid, racism and racial
discrimination.

From that perspective it was evident that countries and peoples embraced the Convention as a
solidarity mechanism of a legal nature in the struggle against colonial rule and apartheid. The
preamble of the Convention and Article 3 condemning apartheid and segregation bear in their
terminology the mark of this struggle. In fact, the struggle against racism and racial
discrimination was considered a foreign policy interest, at least in the perception of the majority
of the members of the United Nations. In this connection, it is telling that foreign policy and
diplomatic experience have always been strongly present among the persons nominated and
elected as expert members of the CERD. Particularly in the early years, governmental
influence over certain members of the Committee, notably those who were nationals of
communist States, was strong and visible.

Today the situation is different. The CERD has repeatedly made it clear in its dialogue with
States Parties that no country can rightly claim that it does not face within its own borders
actual or potential problems of racial discrimination as defined in Article 1 of the Convention.
This article refers to "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour,
descent, or national or ethnic origin".

2 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx

~6~
Problems of racial discrimination are rampant everywhere. Awareness to this effect is growing
but by no means generally acknowledged. Thus, no less than sixteen out of thirty governments
reported some years ago, in 1994, in reply to an enquiry by the UN Special Rapporteur on
contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance that
these phenomena did not exist in their country

~7~
 CHAPTER- II

DECLARATION ON ELIMINATION OF ALL

FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
For the determination of the scope of the Convention it is essential to refer to Article 1,
paragraph, 1, which reads: "In this Convention, the term racial discrimination shall mean any
distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or
ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition,
enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the
political, economic, social and cultural or any other fields of public life."

In order to further clarify the scope of the Convention, the following four aspects will be
discussed briefly:

I. The non-discrimination grounds;

II. Direct and indirect discrimination;

III. The status of non-citizens; and

IV. Special measures (affirmative action).8

The listing of non-discrimination grounds in Article 1, paragraph 1, indicates the broad scope of
the Convention, going far beyond the colonial context and including, in addition to "race" and
"colour", other grounds such as "descent" and "national or ethnic origin". The CERD, in its
review and appraisal of the implementation by States Parties of the Convention, is therefore not
only dealing with the position and treatment of groups and persons who can be distinguished on
the basis of colour of skin but also with groups and persons belonging to ethnic or national
minorities, indigenous populations and other people who have been victimised by persistent and
entrenched discrimination, such as Roma and Sinti, and Dalits. The Convention also applies in

~8~
relation to discrimination to immigrants, asylum seekers and other persons of foreign origin. By
and large, the broad approach by the CERD, based on the wording of Article 1, paragraph 1, has
not been challenged by the States Parties. However, the State of India did express its
disagreement when the CERD dealt with the deplorable situation of the Dalits and refused to
accept the position of the CERD that the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes fell within the
purview of the Convention on the basis of the notion "descent".9 As is noted below, the CERD
has in recent times pursued the issue of descent-based discrimination and reaffirmed, in a
General Recommendation adopted in August 2002, that discrimination based on "descent"
includes discrimination against members of communities based on forms of social stratification
such as caste and analogous systems of inherited status. In discussing the situation in Algeria, in
particular large-scale killings by religious and political extremists, some members of the CERD
were doubtful whether these killings were racially or ethnically motivated and came within the
Committee's mandate. It was against this background that the chairperson of the CERD included
in his letter of transmittal of the 1995 annual report to the UN Secretary-General the following
passage:

"In many conflicts sentiments of ethnic belonging are mixed with sentiments of a religious or
political character. The text of the Convention provides little guidance on the differentiation of
ethnic from political motivation, while the position is further complicated by its definition of
racial discrimination as covering distinctions which are racial either in their purpose or their
effect. In several of the situations considered during 1995, Committee members were uncertain
whether the ethnic elements in the apparent tensions were sufficient to bring the situation within
the scope of the Convention."10

Certain policies or measures appear, at face value, to affect all people in the same way and are
therefore non-discriminatory in the formal sense. However, in actuality, such policies or
measures may have more adverse consequences for some categories of people than for others.
Such policies or measures which may not be discriminatory in their intent but which are in their
effect, are characterised as indirect discrimination. The Convention also aims to combat indirect
discrimination. For this reason, the definition article cited above refers to the "purpose or effect"
of nullifying and impairing and covers, for that matter, direct (purpose) and indirect (effect)
~9~
discrimination. The CERD emphasised this point in one of its general recommendations where
it stated that a distinction is contrary to the Convention if it has either the purpose or the effect
of impairing particular rights and freedoms.11 In expressing its views on immigration laws and
policies pertaining to the United Kingdom and Switzerland, the CERD confirmed this position
by making it clear that these laws and policies had not only to be assessed as regards their
purposes but also in their consequences.12

The Convention is ambiguous where in Article 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, it states that it does not
apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences between citizens and non-citizens
and that it excludes from its ambit legal provisions concerning nationality, citizenship or
naturalisation, provided that such provisions do not discriminate against any particular
nationality. The ambiguity created in order to serve restrictive State interests is regrettable
because in many countries the distinction between nationals (citizens) and non-nationals (non-
citizens) is drawn along racial or ethnic lines and creates a division between two different
classes of people in society: those enjoying rights and benefits and those whose presence is at
best tolerated. The CERD has held that lawful distinctions between citizens and non-citizens
must not be applied in a racially discriminatory manner. The CERD has recognised the
inherently racist implications that often beset the distinction between nationals and non-
nationals and has tried to overcome this distinction and division by regularly taking up the
unfavourable position of non-nationals13 and by adopting a general recommendation on the
matter. In this general recommendation, the CERD affirmed its position that States Parties are
under an obligation to fully report upon legislation on foreigners and its implementation and it
further affirmed that Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Convention must not be interpreted as
detracting in any way from the rights and freedoms recognised in other human rights
instruments.14

Like the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, Article 4),
the Convention allows (or rather encourages) in Article 1, paragraph 4 and Article 2, paragraph
2, special measures by way of affirmative action in order to secure, on a temporary basis,

~ 10 ~
accelerated advancement of disadvantaged groups or individuals. Such special measures which
shall not lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different groups and which shall cease
once their objectives have been achieved, are not deemed to constitute discrimination. In its
General Recommendation XIV,15 the CERD observed that a differentiation of treatment will
not constitute discrimination if the criteria for such differentiation, judged against the objectives
and the purposes of the Convention, are legitimate or fall within the scope of Article 1,
paragraph 4, of the Convention (special measures or affirmative action). In these days of
reappraisal of the cause and the legitimacy of affirmative action, it is more than useful to keep
in mind its conventional basis in the ICERD and the CEDAW, not only as a reflection of views
held in the 1960s and 1970s, but also as a requirement of justice after the turn of the century.

The Declaration follows the structure of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with
a preamble followed by eleven articles.

Article 1 declares that discrimination on the basis of race, colour or ethnicity is "an offence to
human dignity" and condemns it as a violation of the principles underlying the United Nations
Charter, a violation of human rights and a threat to peace and security.[2]

Article 2 calls on states, institutions, groups and individuals not to discriminate on the basis of
race in human rights. It calls on states to end support for discrimination, and to take affirmative
action where necessary to correct it.

Article 3 calls for particular efforts to end racial discrimination in civil rights, housing,
employment, education, and calls for everyone to have free access to public places and services
regardless of race.

Article 4 calls on states to review policies and repeal laws which discriminate on the basis of
race.

Article 5 calls for an end to racial segregation and apartheid.

Article 6 calls for an end to racial discrimination in political rights, in particular the right to vote
and stand for public office.

~ 11 ~
Article 7 declares that everyone has the right to equality before the law and to equal justice
before the law regardless of race. It calls for everyone to have an effective remedy, enforceable
through the courts, for harm suffered through racial discrimination.

Article 8 calls for education to promote tolerance and racial understanding.

Article 9 condemns propaganda and organisations based on the idea of racial supremacism. It
calls for incitements to racial violence, or hate speech to be criminalised, and for racist
organisations to be outlawed.

Article 10 calls on the United Nations to study the causes of racial discrimination so as to better
combat it.

Article 11 calls on every state to promote respect of fundamental human rights and the
principles of this declaration and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

As a declaration rather than a treaty, the document is non-binding.

~ 12 ~
 CHAPTER- III

COMMITTEE ON THE CONVENTION

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is a body of human rights experts
tasked with monitoring the implementation of the Convention. It consists of 18 independent
human rights experts, elected for four-year terms, with half the members elected every two
years. Members are elected by secret ballot of the parties, with each party allowed to nominate
one of its nationals to the Committee. All parties are required to submit regular reports to the
Committee outlining the legislative, judicial, policy and other measures they have taken to give
effect to the Convention. The first report is due within a year of the Convention entering into
effect for that state; thereafter reports are due every two years or whenever the Committee
requests.[85] The Committee examines each report and addresses its concerns and
recommendations to the state party in the form of "concluding observations".

The Committee typically meets every March and August in Geneva In addition to the reporting
procedure, the Convention establishes three other mechanisms through which the Committee
performs its monitoring functions: the early-warning procedure, the examination of inter-state
complaints and the examination of individual complaints.

The Committee meets in Geneva and normally holds two sessions per year consisting of three
weeks each. The Committee also publishes its interpretation of the content of human rights
provisions, known as general recommendations (or general comments), on thematic issues and
organizes thematic discussions.

Considering that the Charter of the United Nations is based on the principles of the dignity and
equality inherent in all human beings, and that all Member States have pledged themselves to
take joint and separate action, in co-operation with the Organization, for the achievement of one
of the purposes of the United Nations which is to promote and encourage universal respect for
and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to
race, sex, language or religion,

Considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that all human beings
are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and

~ 13 ~
freedoms set out therein, without distinction of any kind, in particular as to race, colour or
national origin,

Considering that all human beings are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection
of the law against any discrimination and against any incitement to discrimination,

Considering that the United Nations has condemned colonialism and all practices of segregation
and discrimination associated therewith, in whatever form and wherever they exist, and that the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 14
December 1960 (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)) has affirmed and solemnly
proclaimed the necessity of bringing them to a speedy and unconditional end,

Considering that the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination of 20 November 1963 (General Assembly resolution 1904 (XVIII)) solemnly
affirms the necessity of speedily eliminating racial discrimination throughout the world in all its
forms and manifestations and of securing understanding of and respect for the dignity of the
human person,

Convinced that any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false,
morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial
discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere, Reaffirming that discrimination between
human beings on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin is an obstacle to friendly and
peaceful relations among nations and is capable of disturbing peace and security among peoples
and the harmony of persons living side by side even within one and the same State, Convinced
that the existence of racial barriers is repugnant to the ideals of any human society, Alarmed by
manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas of the world and by
governmental policies based on racial superiority or hatred, such as policies of apartheid,
segregation or separation, Resolved to adopt all necessary measures for speedily eliminating
racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations, and to prevent and combat racist
doctrines and practices in order to promote understanding between races and to build an
international community free from all forms of racial segregation and racial discrimination,

Bearing in mind the Convention concerning Discrimination in respect of Employment and

Occupation adopted by the International Labour Organisation in 1958, and the Convention
~ 14 ~
against Discrimination in Education adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization in 1960,

Desiring to implement the principles embodied in the United Nations Declaration on the
Elimination of Al l Forms of Racial Discrimination and to secure the earliest adoption of
practical measures to that end, No doubt the ICERD has been and still is the most
comprehensive international standard in the panoply of legal means and mechanisms to combat
racial discrimination. The Convention is a reflection of the high priority given in the United
Nations to the eradication of racial discrimination and its core provisions form part of the
customary international law of human rights and ius cogens.22 Although the Convention as a
world-wide document has been ratified by nearly all European States, its impact in Europe has
been limited,23 because racial discrimination is not widely and thoroughly associated with
violations of human rights domestically.

The leading document on European human rights law, the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), plays an increasingly
important role in the legal and political order of Europe and is also gaining broader
geographical scope after the demise of totalitarian rule in Central and Eastern Europe. However,
the ECHR has been inadequate as an anti-discrimination device because of the narrow scope of
its non-discrimination provision (Article 14). For a long time, hardly any cases involving racial
discrimination reached the European Court of Human Rights. Insofar as the European Court did
examine and adjudicate such cases, the Court has not shown great sensitivity as regards the
dimensions of racism and racial discrimination by toning down the exigencies of the anti-racism
convention in relation to the dissemination of racist statements (Jersild) or by minimising the
racial effects of certain immigration laws and policies (Abdulaziz).24 However, this trend is
changing and the European Court now appears to take racial discrimination as a serious human
rights violation. Thus, in a recent case (Sander) relating to complaints that a jury member in a
criminal case had expressed himself in a racially prejudiced manner, the Court took this matter
very seriously and considered that "[?]in today's multicultural European societies, the
eradication of racism has become a priority goal for all Contracting States (see, inter alia,

~ 15 ~
Declarations of the Vienna and Strasbourg Summits of the Council of Europe). Only in recent
times is Europe making efforts to fill the gaps and to lay down and consolidate anti-
discrimination legislation. This has come about as a result of increasing awareness of racist and
xenophobic views in politics, widespread and continued hostility towards immigrants, non-
citizen residents, asylum seekers and refugees; racist attitudes and behaviour on the part of law
enforcement officers; incitement to intolerance or racial or ethnic hatred, identified and revealed
by such institutions as ECRI26 and the European Parliament. Most welcome is the June 27,
2000 decision by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to adopt Protocol No. 12 of the
ECHR, which provides for a general prohibition of discrimination and thus aims to remove the
limitations of the current non-discrimination provision (Article 14) which only prohibits
discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention. Once
Protocol No. 12 is widely accepted in Europe, it may contribute significantly to the fight against
racism and intolerance but also to furthering equality and non-discrimination in other
respects.27 An equally welcome legal development is the adoption on June 29, 2000 by the
Council of the European Union of Directive 2000/43/EC based on Article 13 of the Treaty of
Amsterdam and implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of
racial or ethnic origin.28 The scope of the Directive touches upon areas where racial
discrimination is most tangible, for example in access to employment, working conditions,
access to all types of vocational guidance and training, membership in organisations of workers
and employers, social security and health care, social advantages, education, access to and
supply of goods and services available to the public, including housing. These areas largely
coincide with the earlier mentioned provisions of Article 5, paragraphs (e) and (f) of the
ICERD. The European Community Directive and the Convention must be regarded as mutually
re-enforcing instruments. In another aspect, there is a parallel, albeit less favourable, provision
in the two instruments insofar as the Directive explicitly excludes from its scope difference of
treatment based on nationality and any treatment which arises from the legal status of third-
country

~ 16 ~
 CHAPTER- IV

IMPACT OF THE CONVENTION

The impact of an international treaty can be measured in two ways: by its acceptance, and by its
implementation. On the first measure, the Convention has gained near-universal acceptance by
the international community, with fewer than twenty (mostly small) states yet to become parties.
Most major states have also accepted the Convention's individual complaints mechanism,
signaling a strong desire to be bound by the Convention's provisions.

On the second measure, the Convention has had a significant impact on national legislation,
with many states adopting legislation outlawing racial discrimination by the state, in the
workplace, or in the provision of services such as housing and education. Such legislation may
be either civil or criminal. Examples of the former include the Civil Rights Act 1964 (United
States), Race Relations Act 1971 (New Zealand), Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Australia),
Race Relations Act 1976 (UK), and Canadian Human Rights Act 1977 (Canada). Criminal
provisions are used in Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway and Portugal.[ Despite
reservations to the Convention, most western European nations have criminalized the incitement
of racial hatred.

The Convention has faced persistent problems with reporting since its inception, with parties
frequently failing to report fully, or even at all.As of 2008, twenty parties had failed to report for
more than ten years, and thirty parties had failed to report for more than five.One party, Sierra
Leone, had failed to report since 1976, while two more Liberia and Saint Lucia had never met
their reporting requirements under the Convention.[ The Committee has responded to this

~ 17 ~
persistent failure to report by reviewing the late parties anyway a strategy that has produced
some success in gaining compliance with reporting requirements This lack of reporting is seen
by some as a significant failure of the Convention. However the reporting system has also been
praised as providing "a permanent stimulus inducing individual States to enact anti-racist
legislation or amend the existing one when necessary

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD) places
an onus on UN member states who are party to the Convention to pursue by all appropriate
means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and
promoting understanding among all races. The Convention covers the legislative, judicial,
administrative or other measures that need to be implemented to give effect to its provisions. It
was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 21 December, 1965 and entered into force on 2
January, 1969 in accordance with Article 19.

The Conventions current 177 Member States have obliged themselves to combating racism
through the mechanisms described in the seven substantial articles of the Convention. The
Committee on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination (Committee) is a
monitoring body to which Member States report on their progress regarding the implementation
of the CERD. The Committee on its part assesses those so-called State reports.1 Apart from
assessing State reports, the Committee also makes general recommendations,2 receives
complaints of States about other States,3 and it receives individual complaints.

~ 18 ~
 CHAPTER- III

CONCLUSION
Considering that the Charter of the United Nations is based on the principles of the dignity and
equality inherent in all human beings, and that all Member States have pledged themselves to
take joint and separate action, in co-operation with the Organization, for the achievement of one
of the purposes of the United Nations which is to promote and encourage universal respect for
and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to
race, sex, language or religion, In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean
any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or
ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition,
enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the
political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by
a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the legal provisions of
States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that such provisions
do not discriminate against any particular nationality.

~ 19 ~
Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial
or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure
such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental
freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do
not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and
that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been
achieved. Considering that the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination of 20 November 1963 (General Assembly resolution 1904 (XVIII))
solemnly affirms the necessity of speedily eliminating racial discrimination throughout the
world in all its forms and manifestations and of securing understanding of and respect for the
dignity of the human person, Convinced that any doctrine of superiority based on racial
differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and
that there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere,
Reaffirming that discrimination between human beings on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic
origin is an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations among nations and is capable of
disturbing peace and security among peoples and the harmony of persons living side by side
even within one and the same State,

~ 20 ~