2020 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2(2) prejudices and promote understanding among different groups. 109 General Recommendation No 13 acknowledges the role of ‘public authorities and public institutions, national and local’, in guaranteeing the rights identified under art 5, and that ‘law enforcement officials should receive intensive training’ to do so. 110 In relation to this, it is worth reiterating that in art 2 on obligations, the ICERD requires states to take active measures to combat racial discrimination. Building on this, the Committee calls upon states parties to report on measures taken for training of law enforcement in the elimination of racial discrimination, when preparing its periodic state report. 111 The state is responsible for ensuring that its public authorities comply with the ICERD. However, during the assessment of Concluding Observations and individual complaints, no communications were found that challenged the discretion of public authorities in determining nationality itself, even if the chances were high that it would lead to discrimination and arbitrariness. On the naturalisation procedure, the Committee has made recommendations to ensure ‘standardized registration procedures’ or ‘legal safeguards’. 112 However, it has not been consistent in the way it phrases such recommendations. To countries with particular problems regarding prejudices and the right to nationality, such as Madagascar, Thailand, Lebanon and Kuwait, the Committee has not mentioned discrimination as a result of such prejudices, although it did in these cases raise other issues related to nationality. 113 Switzerland provides another interesting case study. It includes in its naturalisation procedure a popular vote to determine if a person should obtain citizenship in a number of its states (Cantons). In 2002, the Committee noted that ‘it was concerned at expressions of xenophobic and racist attitudes’ in these procedures. 114 When an applicant of Albanian origin was rejected for Swiss nationality by popular vote, he submitted a complaint to the Committee claiming that he was rejected because of his national origin. While the Committee declared the case inadmissible as ‘discrimination on the grounds of national or ethnic 109 110 111 112 113 114 ICERD (n 3) art 7. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation 13 on the Training of Law Enforcement Officials in the Protection of Human Rights, UN Doc A/49/18 (16 March 1993) [1]–[2]. SRG, UN Doc CERD/C/2007/1 (n 25) [19]. Concluding Observations: Kenya, UN Doc CERD/C/KEN/CO/5-7 (n 74) [27], [29]. De Chickera and Whiteman (n 8) 104; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 9 of the Convention: Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Madagascar, UN Doc CERD/C/65/CO/4 (10 December 2004) [15] (‘Concluding Observations: Madagascar’); Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations on the Eighteenth to Twenty-Second Periodic Reports of Lebanon, UN Doc CERD/C/LBN/CO/18-22 (26 August 2016) [23] (‘Concluding Observations: Lebanon’); Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations on the First to Third Periodic Reports of Thailand, Adopted by the Committee at Its Eighty-First session, UN Doc CERD/C/THA/CO/1-3 (15 November 2012) [14] (‘Concluding Observations: Thailand’). Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 9 of the Convention: Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Switzerland, UN Doc CERD/C/60/CO/14 (21 May 2002) [10]. 238