首創制度、進展緩慢――《消除一切形式種族歧視公約》個人申訴之分析

First Mechanism, Slow Development —Analyses of Individual Communications of the ICERD

《消除一切形式種族歧視公約》（公約）是聯合國所通過的第一份核心人權條約，首創國際監督機制及個人申訴制度。個人申訴制度已有將近四十年之歷史，但是依然尚未有完整豐富之進展。
消除種族歧視委員會（委員會）只審理種族歧視案件，不及於其他歧視因素。委員會並不著重申訴人是否為公民，而是更在乎是否有種族歧視之存在。公約第1條至第7條是主要權利保障條文，不過個人申訴案件只與公約第4條、第5條及第6條有關。
在面對種族歧視時，委員會關心兩個層次，第一是締約國是否立法禁止並處罰之，第二是必需確保法律之有效執行。如果締約國發生威脅、仇恨、歧視種族之言行時，委員會即會認為違反公約第4條。
個人申訴案件並未觸及所有第5條已經臚列之權利，值得重視的是委員會相當積極地保障原住民族之相關權利，特別是選舉權及財產權，委員會補強詮釋權利之內涵，強調集體權利之特質，並落實原住民族自決。委員會亦積極審酌工作權及進入公共場域之權利的相關案件。
不論委員會是否已認定個案違反公約第4條或第5條，其亦透過檢視公約第6條救濟及調查義務，進一步審酌當事國是否違反公約。委員會強調，不能僅因締約國有法律規定禁止種族歧視，即表示已履行義務，而是要包含具體實踐及有效監督；有無歧視存在，應由締約國舉證之；應對加害人制裁；不應使被害人承受過度負擔，對被害人之賠償應公允及充分。

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was the UN’s first core human rights treaty. The Convention also established the first international monitoring mechanism permitting individual communication. However, although it has been in effect for almost forty years, the individual communication system has not been fully developed.
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination focuses on racial discrimination alone, discounting other forms of discrimination. It is not concerned about the citizenship of the author of a complaint, simply looking at whether racial discrimination is involved. Although Articles 1 to 7 of the Convention are state the main rights provisions, individual communications are limited to Articles 4, 5 and 6.
Faced with a case of racial discrimination, the Committee requires contracting parties to enact legislation and impose penalties so as to ensure effective enforcement. Instances of racially threatening, hateful or discriminatory language or conduct are treated as violations of Article 4.
Not all the rights guaranteed in Article 5 are open to individual communications. It is worth noting that the Committee positively protects the rights of indigenous peoples, especially the rights to vote and to own property. The Committee reinforces a broad reading of rights, emphasizing collective rights and self-determination. It also endeavors to guarantee the　
right to work and any right involving access to public places or services.
Whether or not a case is considered to be a violation of Articles 4 or 5, the Committee can use the provisions for effective protection and remedy outlined in Article 6. The Committee deems that the burden of proof lies on the contracting party and not on the petitioner. Contracting parties should also impose penalties on offenders and offer fair and sufficient compensations to victims.