CERD/C/84/D/50/2012 CHF 12.50 daily, the same amount paid to everyone in his situation. An appeal may be lodged in respect of this benefit, to the Director of the Office and within 10 days of the notification of granting of assistance, in accordance with article 72 of the Cantonal Act on Assistance to Asylum Seekers and article 6 of the Social Welfare Guide of the Canton of Vaud. In this case the petitioner has never objected to these decisions by challenging the amount granted; he has only challenged amounts withheld when, in one case, he had failed to comply with the notice requiring him to attend courses at which attendance was compulsory and, in the other, he had earned some income by giving French lessons. His appeal in respect of the latter is pending with the Chief of the Finance Department of the Canton. 4.17 As to the complaint under article 6 of the Convention, and as mentioned above, the State party considers that the petitioner has not, or has not properly, exhausted all remedies, which means that the question of whether there has been discrimination has not been considered by the courts. What is relevant from the standpoint of article 6 is that the Swiss legal system provides effective protection against true discrimination (provided there is a defensible claim). Swiss case law, which is broad in scope, shows that that protection is effective and genuine. Petitioner’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 5.1 On 6 November 2012 the petitioner submitted comments. He complains that temporary admission is a system designed to deter foreigners from remaining on Swiss territory. Temporary admission status has no time limit and people might live in Switzerland with that status for 20 or 30 years. Persons admitted on a temporary basis are set apart by the regime associated with this status, which applies in every area of daily life, and by their physical appearance, their language and their national and cultural origin. In his view the notion of origin and nationality cannot be separated from the status of temporary admission. The ban on racial discrimination within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention has not been faithfully incorporated into Swiss law and therefore does not guarantee protection in line with international standards. Switzerland has three distinct groups, based on nationality: (1) Swiss; (2) Europeans and American, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand citizens; and (3) nationals of third countries. A person with temporary admission status can only belong to the third category. 5.2 The petitioner describes comments made by officials of the Federal Office for Migration, some of them on the radio, to the effect that persons with temporary admission status are welfare cases. He maintains that these comments are a violation of article 4 of the Convention. He describes the attitude of the migration services in their handling of cases, an attitude that he maintains has never been penalized by the State party’s courts. He therefore asks the Committee not to concentrate on specific claims but rather to make an overall analysis and try to establish to what extent the social, economic and cultural context in Switzerland is a factor in discrimination against particular groups of the foreign population, whether in respect of civil and political rights or economic, social and cultural rights. 5.3 The petitioner notes that the State party has itself acknowledged that there is exclusion of persons who have been legally settled on its territory for a certain length of time. An analysis should therefore be made of the identity of those who make up the group of persons admitted on a temporary basis. The State party sees temporary admission as a highly strategic status. According to the petitioner, it does not deny racial discrimination but justifies it on the grounds that it has the right to pass laws discriminating against or excluding particular persons or groups within the foreign population under its jurisdiction. GE.14-41526 11