HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE HOLDS TENTH INFORMAL MEETING WITH STATES

The Human Rights Committee this afternoon held its tenth informal meeting with States, discussing working methods, the simplified reporting procedure, the 2020 review of the treaty body system, resource related matters, and the draft General Comment no. 36 on the right to life.

In his opening remarks, Yuval Shany, Committee Chairperson, stressed that despite the many challenges, the Committee’s ability to offer a professional and non-political avenue for promoting and protecting human rights, based on constructive engagement with States, constituted a particularly effective path for change and for providing remedy to victims of human rights violations. The Committee had exchanged ideas and practices with other Committees through appointed contact points. It also planned to embark on a coordinated reporting apparatus with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. However, the lack of resources hampered the Committee’s ability to do more. Unless there was a significant increase in the capacity of the secretariat to support the Committee, its efficiency and credibility would be seriously compromised. Turning to the adoption of the draft General Comment no. 36, Mr. Shany said that it would make an important contribution to international human rights law. It enshrined the right to life with dignity, underscored the obligation of States to protect the right to life, reaffirmed the duty to investigate the allegations of arbitrary deprivation of life, and called on States to gradually move towards the abolition of the death penalty.

Speaking of the simplified reporting procedure, Committee Expert Christof Heyns said that the Committee had conducted an assessment of the procedure. The conclusion of the study was that the simplified reporting procedure was more focused, decreased the overall workload, and improved the quality of the process. There was greater relevance of the information obtained through the dialogue. The Human Rights Committee should adopt the simplified reporting procedure as a permanent option for States, and it should seek alignment with other treaty bodies.

On the 2020 review of the treaty body system, Committee Expert Olivier de Frouville noted that the Committee had adopted some new measures that might improve the functioning of the treaty body system, such as the harmonization of procedures, dealing with reprisals against persons who cooperated with the treaty body system, and technical assistance to States to present their reports. However, other measures envisaged by the resolution 68/268 did not seem to contribute to the viability of Committees, like the inflexible word limit for reports and documents, and the lack of translation of documents into all United Nations official languages.

Sarah Cleveland, Committee Expert, noted that the current system with 10 autonomous treaty bodies was not sustainable in the long-term due to the overlap of mandates, diverging methods of work, and redundancies in the examination of States and recommendations. The most important reform idea was the clustering of the periodic review of States, as proposed by the Geneva Academy. The clustering and coordination would make States’ reporting obligations predictable, it would streamline those obligations, it would reduce the unnecessary overlap in reporting, and it would cut costs.

Ahmed Amin Fathalla, Committee Expert, highlighted the problematic issue of the backlog in individual communications, which required the attention and consideration of States parties. There were currently 635 pending cases and the backlog was growing. The extra meeting time that the Committee had received had not been matched with the required human resources to prepare the preliminary documentation. The Committee was ready to move that work in two chambers in order to increase the number of considered communications. Increasing the capacity of the secretariat was crucial for the Committee to discharge its mandate fully.

Ibrahim Salama, Chief of the Human Rights Treaties Branch of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, stressed that it was a miracle that the Human Rights Committee was performing to the level of seen quality with the current available resources. The General Assembly had decided to grant additional meeting time to the Committee, but not to grant the corresponding human resources. It was in the hands of States to determine in which direction the situation would go.

In the ensuing discussion, States inquired about the ways in which the Committee dealt with the large backlog of individual communications, about the proposed clustered and coordinated review of State reports by treaty bodies, and details on the joint reporting with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. They agreed that the simplified reporting procedure should be offered as a permanent option to States. It was important to have clear, transparent and detailed information on how the simplified reporting procedure functioned. When it came to the 2020 review of the treaty body system, some delegations cautioned that there should be a distinction between attainable changes and changing structures, and they underscored the importance of enhancing dialogue on that subject in Geneva. Several delegations called attention to the lack of relevant documentation available in the official languages of the United Nations.

Speaking were Russian Federation, Norway, Pakistan, Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, Egypt, Germany, Belarus, Japan, Paraguay, and Austria.


The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 2 November, at 10 a.m. to discuss follow-up to Views.


Opening Statements

YUVAL SHANY, Committee Chairperson, informed States about the Committee’s work, achievements and challenges. On average, the Human Rights Committee reviewed six States per session and prepared for the review of six more States. Last year, the Committee had been able to review more than 30 individual communications on average. During the current session, the Committee had adopted draft General Comment no. 36 on the right to life, and it would adopt new rules of procedure by the end of the week. The Committee had also adopted possible elements for a common aligned procedure for follow-up, and it had endorsed a statement on human rights defenders, formulated by representatives of all treaty bodies. Despite the many challenges, the Committee’s ability to offer a professional and non-political avenue for protecting and promoting human rights, based on constructive engagement with States, constituted a particularly effective path for change and for providing remedy to victims of human rights violations.

In 2010, the Committee had adopted the simplified reporting procedure and it now offered that procedure to all States parties submitting reports. So far, 55 Member States had opted to be considered under that procedure, which significantly alleviated the reporting burden for States parties. Mr. Shany encouraged all States that had not done so to use that procedure. Among the other procedures to improve its efficiency, the Committee had developed a procedure to deal with repetitive communications, invited parties to offer oral comments in complex cases, developed guidelines on remedies, established new modalities for working in chambers, introduced videoconferencing facilities, reduced the number of rounds for follow-up reporting to one, and had limited paperwork relating to the review of individual communications. It had exchanged ideas and practices with other Committees through appointed contact points. The Committee also planned to embark on a coordinated reporting apparatus with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In order to deal with non-reporting and late reporting by States parties, the Committee aimed to prepare at least one list of issues in the absence of a State report and to conduct in each session a review of at least one non-reporting or late-reporting State. One aspect that limited the Committee to do more was the relative lack of resources. Unless there was a significant increase in the capacity of the secretariat to support the Committee, its efficiency and credibility would be seriously compromised. Mr. Shany therefore urged States parties to support a realistic funding formula for the next biannual budget, and to support a more sustainable treaty body system in 2020.

Turning to the adoption of the draft General Comment no. 36, Mr. Shany said that it would make an important contribution to international human rights law. It enshrined the right to life with dignity, underscored the obligation of States to protect the right to life, reaffirmed the duty to investigate the allegations of arbitrary deprivation of life, and called on States to gradually move towards the abolition of the death penalty. Finally, the General Comment posited that the violation of other human rights norms leading to the deprivation of the right to life would result in arbitrary deprivation of life, and that States should refrain from conducting activities that could lead to the deprivation of life, even outside its territory. Recalling the seventieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Mr. Shany noted that the human challenges that the world was currently confronting were too great to miss an opportunity to strengthen the United Nations treaty body system. That opportunity was presented by the 2020 review.

CHRISTOF HEYNS, Committee Expert, noted that the treaty system had often not developed in an organic nor in a systematic manner. The simplified reporting procedure introduced in 2010 had replaced the standard reporting procedure on a pilot basis. The Committee had assessed the simplified reporting procedure by sending questionnaires to 17 States that had submitted reports to the Committee under both procedures, to human rights institutions in those States, States invited to use the simplified reporting procedure but were yet to accept it, and to non-governmental organizations, and through interviews with people involved in reporting process at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The conclusion of the study was that the simplified reporting procedure was more focused, decreased the overall workload, and improved the quality of the process. There was greater relevance of the information obtained through the dialogue. The simplified reporting procedure was a significant improvement, and more States should be encouraged to use it. The Human Rights Committee should adopt the simplified reporting procedure as a permanent option for States, and it should seek alignment with other treaty bodies.

OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Expert, briefed States about the 2020 review of the treaty body system. The Committee had adopted some new measures which might improve the functioning of the treaty body system, such as the harmonization of procedures, dealing with reprisals against persons who cooperated with the treaty body system, and technical assistance to States to present their reports. Other measures envisaged by resolution 68/268 did not seem to contribute to the viability of Committees, such as the increase in the meeting time which had not been complemented with a relevant increase in personnel, the inflexible word limit for reports and documents, and the lack of translation of documents into all United Nations official languages. The instruction by the General Assembly to make meeting summaries available in only one language had led to them being available only in English, excluding work in other official languages. In the same vein, the webcasts had not allowed for overcoming that problem, as they were often available without interpretation. The web pages of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights did not allow access to everyone.

SARAH CLEVELAND, Committee Expert, speaking of the 2020 review of the treaty body system, noted that the current system with 10 autonomous treaty bodies was not sustainable in the long-term due to the overlap of mandates, diverging methods of work, and redundancies in the examination of States and recommendations. The most important reform idea was the clustering of the periodic review of States, during which they would be reviewed on the basis of an eight-year calendar, as proposed by the Geneva Academy. Each cluster of reviews could include the development of a coordinated list of issues by participating treaty bodies, a single report from the State party responding to the coordinated list of issues, back-to-back reviews by separate treaty bodies, and concluding observations and follow-up issued by participating treaty bodies. The clustering and coordination would make States’ reporting obligations predictable, it would streamline those obligations, it would reduce the unnecessary overlap in reporting, and it would cut costs. The Human Rights Committee did not agree that such reviews should be reduced to three instead of six hours. In order to test that idea, the Human Rights Committee was exploring the holding of a coordinated review with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

AHMED AMIN FATHALLA, Committee Expert, reminded that the Committee had submitted through the Economic and Social Council to the General Assembly an annual report on its activities. Mr. Fathalla highlighted the problematic issue of the backlog in individual communications, which required the attention and consideration of States parties. There were currently 635 pending cases and the backlog was growing. The extra meeting time that the Committee had received had not been matched with the required human resources to prepare the preliminary documentation. The Committee was ready to move that work in two chambers in order to increase the number of considered communications, but that depended on increased human resources. Increasing the capacity of the secretariat was crucial for the Committee to discharge its mandate fully. On a positive note, Mr. Fathalla informed that within the available resources, the Committee had been able to have no backlog in State reports. Since the adoption of resolution 68/268, it had dealt with 88 reports.

IBRAHIM SALAMA, Chief of the Human Rights Treaties Branch of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, stressed that it was a miracle that the Human Rights Committee was performing to the level of seen quality with the current available resources. The General Assembly had decided to grant additional meeting time to the Committee, but not to grant the corresponding human resources. The General Assembly had come up with a mathematical formula to be applied to the workload of each committee, but it was a strange glass without a bottom. The formula was a mathematical correlation between the number of reports, the meeting time and available human resources. Accordingly, the Secretary-General had called for 11 new positions in the treaty body system. There was a need for more meeting time to address individual communications. Four Committees (including the Human Rights Committee) had more meeting time, while five Committees had less meeting time in 2018-2019. It was in the hands of States to determine in which direction the situation would go.

Statements by States

Russian Federation, in view of its upcoming review at the Human Rights Committee, asked the secretariat of the Committee to translate into Russian the guiding principles on the preparation of State reports.

Norway stated that it was very pleased with the simplified reporting procedure, adding that it would be useful for other Committees to adopt that procedure. How could the Committee cope with the backlog of individual communications, in light of decreased human resources? Had the Committee adopted an approach that prioritized urgent cases?

Pakistan asked about the proposed clustered and coordinated review of State reports by treaty bodies, namely about the reduction of the review time from six to three hours. Pakistan generally supported the General Comment no. 36 on the right to life, but it had reservations on several paragraphs.

Canada appreciated hearing about the Committee’s preferences on the treaty body strengthening process. It further inquired about the Experts’ concerns about the information presented on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and it asked about details on the joint reporting with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Belgium agreed that the simplified reporting procedure should be offered as a permanent option to States. Was there a possibility to streamline modalities? As for the reporting calendar, Belgium stressed that States should be allowed to better fulfill their reporting obligations.

Switzerland thanked the Committee Members for their incredible work and tireless commitment despite challenges. It welcomed the large number of good practices adopted by the Committee. On the periodicity of reports, it noted that submitting a report once every eight years could pose a problem for some treaty bodies.

Egypt reminded that resolution 68/268 had only encouraged States to use the simplified reporting procedure. Egypt was reflecting on the proposal made by the Geneva Academy to have a clustered and coordinated review of State reports by treaty bodies. On the draft General Comment no. 36 on the right to life, Egypt said that it was a guidance for States parties on the implementation of the Covenant.

Germany stressed the importance of coordination among treaty bodies when it came to the simplified reporting procedure. It was important to have clear, transparent and detailed information on how the simplified reporting procedure functioned.

Belarus said that these informal meetings with States were a useful opportunity to make the Committee’s work more open to States. Belarus inquired about the Committee’s work to raise public awareness in States parties about the Optional Protocol, especially in the European Union.

Japan appreciated the Committee’s work to strengthen the treaty body system, which should also be considered in light of the work of other human rights mechanisms, such as the Human Rights Council. As for a large backlog of individual communications, there seemed to be a structural problem.

Paraguay stated in relation to the 2020 review of the treaty body system that everyone should distinguish between attainable changes without changing structures. Paraguay underscored the importance of enhancing dialogue on that subject in Geneva, and it expressed its support for the simplified reporting procedure. It furthermore asked the secretariat whether documents would continue to be translated in Spanish, which was of great concern.

Austria thanked the Committee for having shared its position about the 2020 review and it asked about the extent to which the Committee exchanged views with other treaty bodies in that respect.

Replies by Committee Experts

YUVAL SHANY, Committee Chairperson, responding to questions about the translation of documents into official United Nations languages, said that the Committee shared those concerns and that it would try its best to meet States’ demands. As for dealing more expeditiously with individual communications, the Committee had a serious resource constraint and it had already applied the priority criteria. The system was currently geared to deal with a few hundred cases per year. On the options in the Geneva Academy report, Mr. Shany reiterated that the Committee supported the clustered review of State reports. Within the existing restraints, it was realistic to have a comprehensive review of States every four years. The three-hour review was not an option for the Committee because of the scope of the issues that needed to be considered.

With respect to the coordinated reporting with the Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, there would be two co-rapporteurs from each Committee to ensure that the two Committees were not asking the same questions. The State would be given a list of issues, and it would be up to the State to submit one or two reports. The Committee made it a point that there had to be greater awareness raising by States about the Optional Protocol. Mr. Shany said that the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was not very user friendly. As for the place of the Human Rights Council in the 2020 review, the Chairperson said that its work was not organically linked with the work of treaty bodies as the Council was a political body. Treaty bodies, nevertheless, were mindful of the various decisions adopted at the Council.

CHRISTOF HEYNS, Committee Expert, informed that the study on the simplified reporting procedure would soon be published on the Committee’s website. As for the streamlining of the simplified reporting procedure, it would be discussed in a meeting to be held in December 2019. The Committee had a system of repetitive cases that had to do with similar legal issues.

AHMED AMIN FATHALLA, Committee Expert, speaking of individual communications, reiterated that the Committee had already improved its methods of work in that respect with the system of dealing with repetitive cases. In addition, the Committee would soon start considering individual communications in two chambers, which, however, called for more human resources.

OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Expert, invited the delegation of Canada to see the French version of the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which had not been updated in four years. That was linked to a broader structural problem and the lack of centralization of language versions of the website. As for improving methods of works, it had its limits and the Committee had already made efforts through the procedure of repeated individual communications. The Committee was seeking to harmonize work with other Committees as much as possible, but the meeting time was limited.

Concluding Remarks

YUVAL SHANY, Committee Chairperson, thanked States for having listened to the Committee’s views.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CCPR18/038E