HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE HEARS PROGRESS REPORT OF SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON FOLLOW-UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
The Human Rights Committee held a meeting this afternoon to hear the first part of the progress report of the Rapporteur on follow-up to concluding observations.
Christine Chanet, Rapporteur on follow-up to concluding observations, said that her report focused on replies to requests for additional information received by States. She referred to communications with Panama, Chad, the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, Tunisia, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Croatia, Ecuador, New Zealand, the Republic of Moldova and Colombia. Ms. Chanet said that Israel had made no reply at all to the Committee.
Committee members made comments about the report and procedures for follow-up, and agreed that they should hold private discussions about the situation of the reports of Kosovo and Tunisia. They also made comments and proposals on ways to ensure the success of the follow-up procedure.
In concluding remarks Zonke Zanele Majodina, Chairperson of the Committee, thanked the Rapporteur for her very good report, and referred to a conference with non-governmental organizations she had attended earlier in the year, where a recurring issue raised was that the Committee’s concluding observations were very general and thus very difficult for States parties to implement. Concluding observations had to be specific, implementable and reviewable.
The Committee will hold its next public meeting on Tuesday, 1 November at 10.00 a.m. when it will hear the second half of the progress report of the Rapporteur on follow-up to concluding observations. That will be followed by a public meeting on working methods.
Progress Report of the Rapporteur on Follow-up to Concluding Observations
CHRISTINE CHANET, Rapporteur on Follow-up to Concluding Observations, told Committee members that her report focused on replies received by States. When no reply had been received, as in the case of Israel, the report focused on information received by non-governmental organizations. Ms. Chanet said Panama and Chad had said that they would ‘get back to capital’ and send responses to follow-up as soon as possible.
Concerning the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), the Committee did not have an interlocutor to turn to in order to resolve the matter.
Comments from Committee Members
A Committee member asked whether the mandate of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) had now been completed. The Committee had to decide who they should approach. He suggested that the Committee was still interested in human rights in Kosovo, but the dialogue on that must be held in a closed session. The member clarified that he had not raised the issue of the status of Kosovo, but merely how the Committee should proceed in a dialogue on Kosovo. A member proposed they terminate the dialogue with UNMIK, although he knew a Security Council resolution was still open on the matter.
Report of the Rapporteur
Ms. Chanet said regarding Tunisia, the Committee had asked the State to consider abolition of the death penalty, taking steps to end torture, and to end the harassment of human rights activists and journalists. Tunisia had provided a partial answer which was deemed to be satisfactory. The Committee had asked for more information on every other point and little had been received so far. The State party would be asked to include those responses in its forthcoming fifth periodic report to the Committee, due 31 March 2012. However the State of Tunisia had asked that its fifth periodic report be suspended. Should the Committee agree to that?
Comments from Committee Members
ZONKE ZANELE MAJODINA, Chairperson of the Committee, agreed with the recommendations to come back to the issues of Kosovo and Tunisia in a private meeting.
Report of the Rapporteur
Ms. Chanet said there were two main points rising from the concluding observations for Denmark: violence against women and detention of persons in isolation. Those same issues had come up with another Scandinavian country, Norway, which was interesting. Denmark was a country that had accepted adoption of the new procedure, and so the Committee had received satisfaction with regard to reforms on revised legislation on detention. Information was still needed on the issue of violence against women. The Committee would ask the State party to include that information in their next report, due on 31 October 2013.
The report of Sweden prompted several issues, including persons with disabilities, police custody procedures, implementation of a law on terrorism and holding or detaining asylum seekers. A reply to the request for further information was given, and Sweden’s police custody procedure was now in line with the Convention. There were still specific points that had not been completely clarified. Missing information on asylum seekers should be provided before their next report.
The Netherlands report raised the recurring issue of euthanasia, treatment of asylum seekers and improving places of detention. A partially-satisfactory reply with further information was received from the State party. The Committee still needed information on how complaints could be raised by asylum seekers, cases of non-refoulement and detention conditions. The Committee would like that information before their next report, due in July 2014.
Comments from Committee Members
A member pointed out that the Netherlands just referred to by the Special Rapporteur was only the Netherlands Antilles, and not the main Netherlands. That should be specified in the Committee’s paperwork.
Report of the Rapporteur
Ms. Chanet said Croatia had many problems, particularly war crimes relating to Serbia. There were also issues on minorities acquiring nationality and intimidation of journalists. A reply had been received, although it was not fully satisfactory. The approach to war crimes, where the author had not been identified, was still a concern, as was the witness support programme, which was extremely important. There was no information on the exact number of journalists who had been victims of aggression.
There were many problems in Ecuador with regard to violence against women. Another issue was police enforcement and police violence against women. Ecuador’s next report was due 2013, so the Committee would ask Ecuador, who had cooperated partially, to send the additional information. Ecuador had progressed, they had done a lot of awareness-raising and established institutions to prevent violence against women, but in terms of results there had not been much success and the situation of violence against women was still poor. The Committee wanted information on the prosecution of police and other law-enforcement agencies that did not behave appropriately.
New Zealand was a typical ‘mixed State’, and had been asked to engage in consultations, and to repeal the 2004 law on the Maori. The State had been asked to reduce over representation of Maori in prisons, especially Maori women. It seemed like the Committee was asking the State ‘not to put immigrants in prison’, which was much too broad. The State had been asked not to apply terrorism laws in a discriminatory way and to reduce targeted force on suspects. A reply was received in April 2011. In view of the fact the next report was due in March 2015, the Committee should consider the information received to be partially satisfactory. Nevertheless there were still measures that needed to be taken by New Zealand, particularly the repeal of the 2004 law.
Concerning the Republic of Moldova, the main issue was gender equality. The Committee had received a partially satisfactory reply. The next periodic report was due in October 2013, and the Committee would like to know where the State stood with regard to what they promised the Committee. What resources would be given to the proposed Chancellor of Justice?
Nothing had been received from Israel. No reply at all. However there had been documents from nine non-governmental organizations. The next report from Israel was due in June 2013, and the Committee could send a letter to Israel to remind them of their obligations.
Comments from Committee Members
A member said obviously the Committee must persist in asking Israel for the required information, so it could be examined in the next session. A number of non-governmental organizations had shown great interest in the matter. When a State did not cooperate with a Committee, or was not involved in the follow-up, perhaps they should be listed as a State not fulfilling its obligations. A member said he was not specifically referring to Israel but to all non-cooperative States.
Report of the Rapporteur
As far as Columbia was concerned, Ms. Chanet said there was a slight deviation from usual practice. There were requests pertaining to serious violations of human rights in Columbia. The State party had been asked to take effective measures to abrogate the guidelines for the Defence Ministry, particularly in reference to extrajudicial killings. There was concern about secretive witnesses, and intelligence gathering services. In August and September the Secretariat had met with the Columbian Commission of Jurists. There were discrepancies between replies from the State party and the Columbian Commission of Jurists. The Committee recommended that next March, when they met in New York, they could analyze the overall situation.
Comments from Committee Members
A member commented that his impression was that States parties were being more cooperative in giving replies than they had last year. Perhaps the Secretariat could analyze the number of responses from States parties to see if there had been progress?
A member made a proposal on the applicability of concluding observations for follow-up, that the Committee should give the floor to the Rapporteur on follow-up before adopting concluding observations. Then the Rapporteur could give his or her view on the feasibility of the Committee’s concluding observations.
The success of the follow-up progress would depend on the Committee, more than on the States. In subsequent dialogues with States the Committee must tell them when they have not cooperated with the follow-up process, and what difficulties they had experienced in the process, as those things were not usually raised with States parties.
Concluding Remarks
ZONKE ZANELE MAJODINA, Chairperson of the Committee, thanked the Rapporteur for the very good work she had done in preparing the report and for her innovative annex. She noted what was said about the applicability of the concluding observations, as well as the need for an analysis of how much cooperation had been received so far. In a conference with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) earlier this year, a recurring issue raised was that the Committee’s concluding observations were very general and thus very difficult for States parties to implement. NGOs were much more stringent than the Committee and said that concluding observations had to be specific, implementable and reviewable, which Ms. Majodina agreed with. The report would be adopted after the Committee had discussed the issue of Kosovo in a closed meeting.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CT11/024E