HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE DISCUSSES ROLE OF NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS

The Human Rights Committee this morning discussed the role of national human rights institutions with Gianni Magazzeni, Coordinator of the National Institutions Unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

Mr. Magazzeni said that national human rights institutions were the best relay mechanism at the country level to ensure the application of international human rights norms. They had a pivotal position as the key-stone of a strong national human rights protection system. He explained that current efforts to establish or strengthen national human rights institutions in full compliance with the Paris Principles focused on three major strategic objectives: OHCHR actively supported efforts by Governments to establish and strengthen national human rights institutions in accordance with the Paris Principles; OHCHR ensured synergistic interactions between national human rights institutions and the United Nations human rights system; and OHCHR played a leadership role in closely monitoring the compliance of national human rights institutions with the Paris Principles.

National human rights institutions had a vital role to play in the treaty body process, Mr. Magazzeni underlined. They could be instrumental in consolidating gains made in the promotion and protection of human rights, for example through monitoring the State’s follow-up to recommendations of United Nations human rights treaty bodies. Adherence to the Paris Principles lent greater legitimacy to the role played by national human rights institutions, giving them a level of authority in the treaty process in respect of specific functions such as encouraging ratifications of international instruments, contributing to state reports and expressing opinions on the human rights situations, while ensuring confidence in and due respect for their status as independent institutions within the treaty body system.

Committee Experts welcomed the role of national human rights institutions in promoting knowledge of the human rights system, the dissemination of concluding observations, and follow-up on the implementation of the concluding observations. Several Experts asked how the United Nations could use national human rights institutions to disseminate the observations of the Committee, for example. An Expert suggested that OHCHR take over the role of a systematic information relay to the national institutions. An Expert noted that so far, there was no mechanism for follow-up on the implementation of the recommendations. Also, the future role of facilitating communication between treaty bodies and the national human rights institutions was welcomed. OHCHR encouraged a dialogue with “A-status” institutions, but the Committee also had to speak with other institutions.

An Expert drew attention to the fact that promoting the role of the submission of overdue reports to treaty bodies was not part of the Nairobi Declaration of 24 October 2008, which stated that national human rights institutions should publicize and encourage implementation of relevant recommendations of United Nations treaty bodies. Another Expert said that so much was expected of national human rights institutions, for example in Africa, but Governments often interfered in the their work and the institutions were in no way independent. Also, the aspect of funding was addressed and an Expert suggested that OHCHR became involved in this matter. Only two national human rights institutions had handed in shadow reports to the Committee this session and an Expert asked whether OHCHR could encourage more national human rights institutions to do so in order to complement information received from non governmental organizations.

Responding to the questions and comments, Mr. Magazzeni said OHCHR was committed to share every concluding observation with a network of human rights institutions in countries that did not have a national institution as such. OHCHR supported the dissemination of the Committee’s work at the national level. Mr. Magazzeni said that Nigeria’s national human rights institution had been downgraded by the International Coordinating Committee because it did not comply with the Paris Principles. Others, such as those in Sri Lanka and Malaysia, would be downgraded if they did not undertake changes within a year.

As to funding, Mr. Magazzeni said that OHCHR and the United Nations Development Programme were developing a tool kit explaining the relevance of national human rights institutions in countries. OHCHR also worked on improving the relation with the non governmental organizations since they were in many countries very much engaged in human rights protection.

Concerning the status of national human rights institutions, the Human Rights Council and OHCHR were paying attention to the effectiveness and independence of national human rights institutions, which determined the status of these bodies. However, Mr. Magazzeni agreed that treaty bodies should receive information from all institutions with any status.

Regarding funding, Mr. Magazzeni mentioned Afghanistan’s national human rights institution, which had been fully funded by the United Nations. This was not an ideal situation, but it was the only way to establish an independent institution at a very crucial time. He agreed with the Experts that Governments should be entirely responsible for funding of their own national human rights institutions.

The next meeting of the Committee will be on Friday 31 October when it will issue its concluding observations and recommendations on the countries reviewed in this session before closing its session.


For use of the information media; not an official record


CT08025E