text: thatconsequently Mexicohadnotfullysatisfied therequirements ofarticle 2, paragraph 1,andofarticle 6oftheConvent~ Information wasalsorequested concerning Mexico's plansforpreventive meaSUCdS against racialdiscrimination and anylegislative measures recently takeninMexicotoimplement theprovisions of article 4oftheConvention. 64.Withreference totheimplementation ofarticle 5oftheConvention, members oftheCommittee askedtowhatextentethnicminorities couldparticipate politically incarrying outmunicipal reform; whatthefatewasof15members of theindigenous communities whohadbeenimprisoned with0uttrial;andwhatmeasures hadbeentakentoprotect indigenous languages and,inparticular. toenable representatives ofethnicminorities tousstheirownlanguage beforethecourts. Theyalsowishedtoknowwhatspecial efforthadbeenmadetoassi~tthese minorities intheareaoftoaching andwhatwasthepercentage ofhigherpostsin theadministration orintheMexican diplomatic service heldbypersons belonging tooneoranother oftheminorities. 65.Withreference toarticle 7oftheConvention, thequestion wasaskedwhether Mexicohadtakenorintended totakeappropriate measures toimplement article 7of theConvention andtocombat anyprejudices thatmightleadtoracial discrimination, particularly intheareasofteaching andeducation. 66.Inreplying tothequestions asked,therepresentative oftheStatepartysaid thathecouldassuretheCommittee thatthestatement thatracialdiscrimination didnotexistinMexico wouldbedeleted; heexplained thatthatsentence shouldbe seeninthecontext ofparagraph 4ofthereportasawhole. fromareading of whichitwouldbeunderstood lhatracialdiscrimination didnotexistfromthe legalstandpoint. Heassured theCommittee that,initsseventh periodic report, theGovernment wouldanswerallthequestions askedduringtheCommittee's consideration ofthesixthperiodic report. Itwouldensurethatallthe information soughtwasprovided anditWPllldtakeintoaccount thecomments made, partiCUlarly thoserelating toarticle 4oftheConvention. 67.Theninthperiodic reportofIceland (CERD/C/149/Add.17) waGconsidered bythe Committee atits834thmeeting. on9August 1989(CERD/C/SR.834). -23·-68.Thereportwasintroduced bythel"epresentative ofthereporting State, who expressed concern atthecircumstances that.hadmadeitdifficult fortheCommittee todealinatimely ~annerwiththeperiodic reports submitted bySlatesparties andhopedthatmeasures couldbetakentoremedythatsituation. Hestatedthat withregardtohisowncountry t.hedelayinconsideration ofreports hadhadtwo consequences. Firstly, th~information presented initsninthperiodic reportwas nolongerup-to-date. Secondly, Iceland hadconsidered itappropriate todelay submission ofitstenthreport, duein1988. Insodoing,hisGover.nment was inspired bythedesireoftheCommittee toengageinadialogue wit.hStates parties, without thebenefit ofWhich, andintheabsence ofadoption ofadditional legislative, jUdicial, administrative orotherme.asures, theperiodic reports would bedevoidofcontent. 69.Therepresentative ofIceland statedthat,inaccordance withActNo.13of 1987,theposition oftheOmhudsman oftheIcelandic A1thing, orParliament, had beenformally established andtheinformation insection Aoftheninthreportwas therefore nolongerrelevant. TheA1t.hing hadlaiddownfurther rulesforhis office on2May1988. Heexplained thattheOmbudsman wasresponsible for supervising Stateandlocalgovernmental administration andsafeguarding therights ofindividuals andassociations intheirdealings withtheadministration. The competence oftheOmbudsman didnotextendtotheactivities oftheAlthing itself, nortoactivities ofthecourtsormatters tobede~ided bythecourts. 70.Hefurther explained thatthe~Jbudsman couldtakeup8matterinthreeways. Firstly, hecouldactonthebasisofacomplaint byanindividual orassociation; secondly, hecouldstudyaspecific matter onhisowninitiative; andthirdly and moregenerally, hecouldactwhenheidentified somedefectinexisting legislation orpractice. TheOmbudsman couldconclude casesinthreeways.Firstly. hecould concludA acasewhentherespective institution corrected orsatisfactorily explained thesituation: secondly, hecouldpresent areportsetting outhis recommendations; thirdly, hecouldsuggest thatthematter should bereferred to thecourt.. Whereheidentified defects inlaw,hecouldmakerepresentation to theministry concerned ortheAlthing. Hepointed outthatwhileitwasnotyet possible toassesstheeffectiveness oftheoffice, sinceithadbeeninexistence forlessthantwoyears,itWflSalready clearthattheconcern fortheprotection ofhumanrightswasoneofitsmainpriorities. 71.Therepresentative ofthereporting Statesaidthatarticle 233aofthe
analysis: The text appears to be a report or transcript of a meeting or discussion between a government representative and a committee, likely focusing on human rights and social issues. The conversation revolves around the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the state of racial discrimination in Mexico and Iceland. The topics discussed are primarily related to human rights, social issues, and governance.