HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE MEETS WITH STATES PARTIES

The Human Rights Committee met with States Parties this afternoon to discuss the work of the Committee, including revised reporting guidelines and financial resources.

Zonke Zanele Majodina, Committee Chairperson, said that the last meeting with States Parties had been held in 2009. The issues addressed today would be: financial resources; focused reports based on replies to lists of issues prior to reporting (LOIPR) and implementation of the new optional reporting procedure; General Comment 34, adopted during the July session 2011, and revised reporting guidelines.

Committee members who made extensive comments were Fabian Omar Salvioli, Yuji Iwasawa, Michael O’Flaherty, Iulia Motoc and Krister Thelin. States Parties who took the floor were Argentina, Switzerland, Jamaica, Egypt, Pakistan, United States, Philippines, Algeria, Belarus, South Africa, Mexico, Thailand.

The next public meeting of the Committee will be a Press Conference at Palais Wilson at 1.30 p.m. on Thursday, 3 November.

Comments by the Committee

ZONKE ZANELE MAJODINA, Committee Chairperson, welcomed the States parties to the meeting and emphasized that such meetings should be held more frequently as the last time was 2009. Since then the Committee had received 43 reports, and updated their guidelines on submission of reports. In general States parties had met their obligations, although there was a backlog of 25 reports, and some initial reports had still not been submitted. The Committee continued to formulate General Comments, including one dealing with freedom of expression, which was adopted in July 2009.

There had recently been extensive discussion on the harmonization of working methods across Treaty Bodies. The Committee had held a meeting with the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women to explore overlapping mandates. It had been the first such meeting in the long history of both committees and the Committee hoped to hold more from then on.

FABIAN OMAR SALVIOLI, Committee member, said that the Committee recognized that it was within the United Nations system, yet the work of the Committee was very complex, the Committee had an endless number of questions on individual rights, and on issues related to groups. The Committee covered a range of issues which meant that the Committee needed all the information available. Although it was defined as the third pillar of the United Nations, human rights got the least budgetary allocation (less than four per cent). The lack of resources for the translation of documents was critical as the responses to the list of issues were not always translated. It was a shame because States made efforts to reply extensively but sometimes the Committee could not understand the documents. The Committee was told recently that it must impose word limits on documents, again due to a lack of resources. The Committee had never refused to work due to a lack of translations and worked a lot during sessions. States needed to take those issues seriously; and if the work of the Committee was undermined it would eventually be detrimental to States Parties. States must show genuine commitment to the human rights system.

YUJI IWASAWA, Committee member, presented the implementation of the new optional reporting procedure, adopted in July 2010, and said it was an important development. The Committee against Torture and the Committee on Migrant Workers adopted the same mechanism. Under the new procedure, the Committee adopted a list of issues that the State member had to reply to. The list of issues was divided into two parts: first, the report had to focus on the general situation on human rights. The second part focused on specific information on articles 1 to 27. The Committee assisted the States parties in their reporting duties and States parties were no longer required to submit a report and a list of replies. The new procedure was also beneficial to the United Nations as the burden of the Secretariat was greatly reduced, as only the list of replies needed to be translated. The Committee was aware that many States had problems submitting reports on time due to financial restrictions but hoped the new system would overcome those issues.

MICHAEL O’FLAHERTY, Committee member, dealt with General Comment number 24, adopted during the July session of 2011. The Committee had already developed a General Comment on that subject about 30 years ago, so a new one was formulated. The General Comment had remarkable response of 75 submissions, one of the lengthiest general comments that had been adopted by the Committee. The first section dealt with freedom of expression and the media, and the second concerned access to information held by public bodies. The General Comment also looked at thematic areas, chosen on the basis of how often they had appeared in Committee practice: freedom of expression and political discourse, restrictions on the media (traditional and new media), the phenomenon of new media journalism, freedom of expression and counter-terrorism measures, defamation, the right of freedom of expression in the context of blasphemy, penalizing of expression of opinions concerning the past.

IULIA ANTOANELLA MOTOC, Committee Member, dealt with revised reporting guidelines, which included information on non-discrimination. The guidelines were a result of long discussions in which the word ‘reform’ was widely used. The process of reforming the Treaty Bodies was supposed to unify them. The Committee could ask the States for additional information on the framework of the protection of human rights. The State must involve a greater number of actors, such as non-governmental organizations. The Committee wished that the States pointed out the issues it faced more when reporting to the Committee. Furthermore the Committee should be able to update the existing concluding observations. Ms. Motoc raised two questions: the lack of equal geographic distribution within the Committee, as there was only one member of an Asian country, and that it was also the only committee that had never had a chair from Eastern Europe. Both points should be taken into account for the next Committee Member elections.

KRISTER THELIN, Committee Member, said that the Committee did have a serious communications backlog, of over four years. Ideally they should offer an immediate solution to an individual. Treaty Bodies had tried to streamline their activities. He recalled the adoption of General Comment 33, and dealt with the obligations of States Parties under the Optional Protocol. The views derived their character from the integral role of the Committee both under the Optional protocol and the Committee. There had been a recent development affecting the rules of procedure which took effect 1 January next year and dealt with individual submissions. Someone needed to exhaust the national measures and the international measures first before submitting, or else the submission would not be looked at. One problem with the follow-up procedures was that the States do not respond to the questions.

Comments by States Parties

The representative of ARGENTINA said that the dialogue was necessary and the opportunity should be preserved. Argentina was committed to fulfil its obligations under all human rights treaty bodies and was open to joint action in order to make the Committee more efficient. Argentina also wanted to emphasize the importance of financial means for the Committee.

The representative of SWITZERLAND was very much in favour of the list of issues prior to reporting (LOIPR) and welcomed the General Comment 34. Switzerland was pleased that the Committee addressed the issue on information held by national authorities. On article 20, Switzerland had hoped that the Committee would emphasize more the links with article 19. Switzerland would be pleased to help the Treaty Bodies financially in order to get rid of the backlog in dealing with reports, although it was very difficult to push for that at the General Assembly. The representative asked for details on the Committee’s cooperation with civil society.

The representative of JAMAICA said that neither the rules of procedures nor the Covenant demanded that people from the capital be present for the presentation of the report.

The representative of EGYPT asked about the equal treatment of States concerning the new reporting procedure, because not all States had decided to adopt that new procedure. Concerning financial resources, had there been an attempt to look at how the resources were allocated in a disaggregated way?

The representative of PAKISTAN noted that Pakistan had become a State party in 2010 and was looking for robust cooperation with the Committee. Having a list of issues prior to reporting seemed to be a good idea, yet the Treaty Bodies needed to adopt a holistic way of working. For the process to be credible and objective the list of issues must be based on real facts and claims should be counter-checked. There was no clear definition on hate speech in international law. The need to be careful when dealing with freedom of expression should be taken into consideration.

The representative of the UNITED STATES said that they valued the work of the Committee and asked how it was possible to budget and plan in advance knowing that some parties did not report on time. The United States supported the idea of a master calendar that would help States reporting for different Treaty Bodies at the same time. On General Comment 34, the United States took seriously its obligations to article 19. But it did have concerns on certain issues and the United States would like to expand on them in further consultations. The Committee was most instructive and the United States was pleased when the Committee made specific recommendations.

The representative of the PHILIPPINES said that they were committed to their human rights obligations. The list of issues should be optional and only based on counter-checked information. Noting the recommendations preferred by the Committee, the Philippines said that they should not go beyond the mandate of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The representative of ALGERIA noted that that international instrument covered one of the widest ranges of issues on human rights and the provisions of the Covenant should always be kept into account. The financial issue was cross-cutting and recurring. There needed to be an overall response for the committees not to be restricted in their work. States responses needed to be better targeted. Regarding revised reporting guidelines, the substance of the communications should really be scrutinized.

The representative of BELARUS said that individual communications were concerning. There were unfounded registrations of communications because many people did not exhaust national remedies. Belarus reaffirmed the need of the strict application of the provisions of the Optional Protocol. Regarding the General Comment, Belarus was still concerned by the legal nature of those General Comments.

The representative of SOUTH AFRICA asked exactly how the list of issues was established. On the General Comment, South Africa had wished to see more on the relation between Article 19 and 20. Was a preliminary assessment of the needed resources done recently?

The representative of MEXICO commented on the list of issues prior to reporting, saying there had been a positive change in the reporting system, which was now proven satisfactory. On the General Comment, Mexico said that article 19 was indeed crucial and there should be greater precision for combating terrorism.

The representative of THAILAND said that Thailand was fully committed to the implementation of the ICCPR. The additional workload and meeting time of the Committee should indeed be taken into account. General Comment 34 did not discuss widely enough the public health aspect.

Replies of the Committee

ZONKE ZANELE MAJODINA, Committee Chairperson, thanked the States for their comments. The Committee used its practice when drawing up the General Comments and the right to freely express and receive views was crucial. The Committee had not gone far in establishing a relation between Article 19 and Article 20. There should be indeed a General Comment on Article 20 such as on racial hatred, in order to establish a threshold. Before Article 20 could be understood properly, legislation at a national level had to be far clearer. Ms. Majodina also talked about the issue raised by Jamaica: what forms of representation were offensive for the presentation of a report? It was not about being offensive, but more about what was adequate. At the end of the day, the intention was to ensure that the average person was protected. Hence it was always desirable to have the actual government official present during the presentation of the report in order to entrust them with implementing the Covenant and the recommendations correctly.

The LIOPR had generated a lot of interest but only 11 States Parties had agreed to adopt that new procedure. After many debates the system did seem to be more efficient and it would be great if more States could conform to it. Empirical evidence would come from States Parties. That new procedure would not be the answer to all problems but it would certainly be an improvement. States parties would be the partners of the Committee in evaluating that new system.

MICHAEL O’FLAHERTY, Committee member, said that the issue of whistleblowers had not been dealt with. Article 20 had already a General Comment; and although it was old it provided guidance. There had not been an interactive dialogue with the States Parties before the submission of the General Comment. Might there be a threshold for freedom of expression? The approach of the General Comment was that expression was all forms of expression, such as opinion, and the broad aspect had to be considered. The General Comments were built forensically from the practice of States. Article 44 invited the Committee to issue General Comments. Some delegations mentioned the lack of detail on public health and morals for example. However it was sometimes better not to restrict too much some definitions because of the range of situations that the Committee had to address. Any limitations had to be understood in the light of non-discrimination.

KRISTER THELIN, Committee member, said that not every communication was let through. If it was not registered it was not going to be studied. It was positive to see the delegation of Algeria; and concerning their question, it was not enough for a State party to say that internal domestic law did not provide for elements of the Covenant. He then highlighted the importance of disseminating the Committee’s views. The Committee was hosted by the OHCHR and perhaps the OHCHR website, in which the Treaty Bodies were placed, could maybe be improved.

YUJI IWASAWA, Committee member, appreciated that Mexico said they had appreciated the new procedure of the LOIPR under the Committee against Torture. Many States Parties would like the Committee to assess better the information received, yet the Committee was doing its best. The hope of the Committee was that the LIOPR was going to be used from the second report onwards. The new procedure was applicable to all States and there were no discriminatory measures. Hopefully the States would be on time and then the Committee would not need to send a first LOI and then a second, updated one. The State Party can submit in part two, information that the Committee had not asked for.

IULIA ANTOANELLA MOTOC, Committee member, said that there would be no discrimination on part of the Committee in the new reporting system. There were some observations made by delegations with respect to the role of non-governmental organizations: the approach was a bit different from other United Nations departments and the system had been changed slightly to make the dialogue with non-governmental organizations easier. The variety of experts elected should be respected.


Comments of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Secretariat

The Treaty Bodies budget was close to $50 million US dollars, out of which $30 million dollars went to conference services.

Concluding observations

ZONKE ZANELE MAJODINA, Committee Chairperson, said that there was a need to continue the meetings in a consistent manner, and the Committee would consider those comments further on.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CT11/022E