Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Holds Annual Meeting with States
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights today held its annual informal meeting with States parties.
In her opening remarks, Preeti Saran, Committee Chair, said the United Nations’ liquidity crisis had significantly affected the work of the treaty bodies. In 2025, over 30 per cent of meeting time was lost, leading to fewer State reviews, reduced documentation capacity, and growing backlogs, compounded by a decline in State party reporting. The treaty body system was an independent, treaty-based and preventive mechanism that must not be weakened, particularly amid growing global pushback against human rights. States had an obligation to adequately resource the system they had created.
Committee members provided updates on the Committee’s work, including on the follow-up procedure, individual communications, the draft general comment on armed conflicts, the general comment on the environmental dimension of sustainable development, working methods, and the sixtieth anniversary of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Speaking in the discussion were El Salvador, Russian Federation, Finland, Belgium, China, Mexico, Portugal, Cabo Verde and the State of Palestine.
Topics raised by States in the discussion included concern about the liquidity crisis; the Committee’s working methods; and commitment to the Committee’s work, among others.
The Committee’s seventy-ninth session is being held until 25 February 2026. All documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. Webcasts of the meetings of the session can be found here, and meetings summaries can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, 25 February to close its seventy-ninth session.
Opening Remarks by the Committee Chair
PREETI SARAN, Committee Chair, said the presence of States at today’s meeting assured the Committee of their commitment to economic, social and cultural rights. This year marked the sixtieth anniversary of the Covenant, alongside the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the two foundational legally binding human rights instruments. This milestone was not only a moment for recognition, but also for renewed resolve. While important progress had been made in protecting the rights enshrined in the Covenant, serious challenges persisted. Inequality continued to widen, wealth was increasingly concentrated, and public resources were being diverted away from social protection systems.
At the same time, treaty bodies faced unprecedented constraints, and the Committee regretted the lack of priority given to the treaty body system within the broader United Nations structure. The United Nations’ liquidity crisis had significantly affected the work of the treaty bodies. In 2025, over 30 per cent of meeting time was lost, leading to fewer State reviews, reduced documentation capacity, and growing backlogs, compounded by a decline in State party reporting.
While the human rights system continued to expand through new mechanisms and mandates, existing treaty bodies remained under-resourced. Without adequate, predictable and sustained funding, the quality and timeliness of the work, and the protection of rights holders, were compromised. Recent sessions had been shortened, planned activities cancelled, and uncertainty remained about future sessions, which was unsustainable. Despite these challenges, the Committee remained committed to carrying out its mandate with rigour, independence and integrity. Through dialogue, concluding observations, general comments, and review of individual communications, the Committee supported States in strengthening policies and safeguarding economic, social, and cultural rights. During the session, the Committee held dialogues with four States parties and examined numerous individual communications, while continuing work on follow-up reports and developing new general comments.
The treaty body system was an independent, treaty-based and preventive mechanism that must not be weakened, particularly amid growing global pushback against human rights. States had an obligation to adequately resource the system they had created. The Committee called on all signatories and United Nations Member States to prioritise international human rights law by supporting the Committee’s work. The Committee appreciated the States parties that reported faithfully, implemented recommendations, and engaged constructively with civil society. All States were urged to ensure that no one faced reprisals for engaging with the Committee.
Statements by Committee Experts
ASRAF CAUNHYE, Committee Vice-Chair, talking about the Committee’s methods of work and the follow-up procedure, said each State party had an obligation to take steps to ensure the whole population could enjoy the rights set out in the Covenant. Following constructive dialogue with the Committee, the Committee Experts provided concluding observations, including three recommendations for follow-up by the State party. These involved issues or concerns which required urgent or immediate action and should be implemented within 24 months. It was essential that these measures were instigated without delay to ensure the targeted objectives were achieved within the required timeframe.
While States parties bore primary responsibility for the implementation of the follow-up procedure, engagement with civil society would only strengthen the process. The follow-up report should include data and other information allowing the Committee to assess the State party’s progress. The Committee was currently assessing the follow-up reports of Lithuania and Tajikistan. Unfortunately, follow-up reports from 18 States parties were overdue which hindered the progress towards meaningful change. States parties were urged to ensure the timely implementation of their follow-up reports.
LUDOVIC HENNEBEL, Committee Expert, talking about individual communications, said the Committee had an Optional Protocol which was complementary to the Covenant and included an individual complaints mechanism. The mechanism had recorded almost 400 complaints since its inception, and the Committee had adopted 236 final decisions. There were 22 findings of a violation, three decisions of a non-violation, 31 decisions of admissibility, and 180 cases which had been discontinued; 182 cases were still pending today. The backlog had been reduced from 144 in 2024 to 79 today, forecast to fall to 40 by the end of the year. The system was innovative and would develop jurisprudence. However, of the 173 States parties to the Covenant, only 31 had acceded to the Optional Protocol. The Protocol clarified the legal content of the Covenant and set out obligations for States. The Committee urged States to consider ratifying the Optional Protocol and would offer support in this respect.
MICHAEL WINFHUR, Committee Expert, said the general comment on the environmental dimension of sustainable development was adopted at the end of the last session in September 2025. Climate change and biodiversity loss posed serious threats to people to enjoy economic, social and cultural rights, and States were limited in their ability to respond to these crises. The Committee had undertaken five regional consultations with scientists, civil society and other stakeholders, and also held a day of discussion. There had also been five regional workshops held with children, the first time the Committee had undertaken such activities. There were several components of the general comment, including on equality and non-discrimination, and chapters which focused on each individual article of the Covenant. States were encouraged to make use of the guidance in their national development planning.
LUDOVIC HENNEBEL, Committee Expert, said the Committee had decided to commence work on a new general comment, pertaining to the application of the Covenant in situations of armed conflicts, which was becoming an increasing issue today. There were many active armed conflicts today, with over 240,000 annual deaths relating to armed conflict. The draft general comment sought to provide clarity on how the obligations under the Covenant could be protected and implemented in situations of armed conflict. It would also address territorial aspects, and look at intersectional issues affecting groups such as women, children and minorities. An appeal for contributions had been published; the Committee would be honoured to receive contributions from States parties.
LAURA ELISA PEREZ, Committee Expert, said during these times when human rights were being directly attacked, it was important to strengthen the mandate of the treaty bodies. Decisions about the reduction of meeting time due to the liquidity crisis were materially clashing with the General Assembly resolution adopted in 2014 to strengthen the treaty body system. In this context, it was vital that the Committee improved its working methods. The Committee had updated its working methods and considered other technical tools which would make it possible to establish improved processes. This included the consistent use of human rights indicators, which made it possible to identify areas where economic, social and cultural rights needed to be addressed as a matter of priority.
LAURA MARIA CRĂCIUNEAN-TATU, Committee Expert, said the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee on Civil and Political Rights would mark their sixtieth anniversary this year, which presented an opportunity to raise awareness of the two Covenants. It was hoped that States would undertake activities, including the dissemination of the Covenants, teaching about them in schools and in trainings. The Committee was currently discussing what specific initiatives it could take to celebrate the anniversary, in tandem with the Human Rights Committee. All States that had ideas for celebrating this anniversary were encouraged to share them with the Committee. The general context of the anniversary was discouraging; it was unsure if the autumn session, which the celebration was planned for, would even take place. It was hoped that the anniversary would be used as an opportunity to commit to basic human rights set out in the Covenant.
PREETI SARAN, Committee Chair, noted that in the current global context impacting economic, social and cultural rights, the Committee needed the support of States parties ever more today. Current trends risked reversing decades of progress in social justice, as public spending on health care, education, housing, food security, and social protection declined. Social protection floors were being eroded when people faced compounding crises, including climate change, economic instability, and displacement. The Covenant required States to use the maximum of available resources to progressively realise economic, social and cultural rights.
Discussion with States
Speaking in the discussion, speakers, among other things, thanked the Committee for organising the meeting and for the updates provided, including the challenges the Committee was facing. Many speakers said they firmly believed in the Committee’s work, and its independence and commitment to economic, social and cultural rights worldwide. The work of the Committee was particularly important as economic, cultural and social rights remained on the periphery. The Covenant remained significant in today’s complex challenges.
Speakers said they were very worried about the United Nation’s treaty body system which was being pushed towards paralysis. They expressed their support and shared the Committee’s concerns about the budget crisis affecting the entire human rights architecture. The serious challenges to the work of the Committee were regretful, and the Committee’s efforts undertaken during this challenging time were appreciated, and deserved the full support of States.
The Committee’s decision to develop a general comment on the Covenant and armed conflict was welcome and essential. Today’s global landscape was marked by armed conflict, with civilians too often bearing the brunt. International humanitarian rights law and human rights law stood together as pillars of protection in these situations, but their application faced challenges. The general comment on armed conflict stood as guidance for States in these situations and it was very much appreciated.
It was regretful that the Committee had encountered a backlog in State reports, one speaker said. This was due to the disproportionate allocation of the Committee’s time in sessions to the follow-up of individual communications and the preparation of general comments, among other things. The development of general comments should not interpret the provisions of the Covenant in an expansive manner. Committee Experts should use verified information when discussing State party reports. To uphold the principle of impartiality, it was important to ensure members did not have bias against the country under review in the dialogue, a speaker said. The treaty body system could be strengthened by the provisions of the General Assembly resolution by ensuring that the Committee did not go beyond its mandate.
This year marked the sixtieth anniversary of the two Covenants, with many speakers outlining how they had fulfilled their obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. They reiterated their ability to strengthen cooperation with the Committee and renewed their commitment to the Covenant. Speakers pledged their submission of reports to the human rights system or indicated that they were looking forward to the dialogue with their own countries and the Committee.
Several speakers outlined steps taken in their own countries to strengthen economic, social and cultural rights, including strengthening health care, social security and education. The Committee was urged to give priority to constructive dialogue with States.
The exchanges of views between States and the Committee must be based on progress and challenges to move towards solutions. The Committee was called on to plan and prioritise sessions to address the backlog of reports. Some speakers highlighted regrets that certain United Nations languages were not included in interpretation in the meeting due to liquidity issues.
States asked questions to the Committee, including what measures the Committee had considered within the scope of its mandate to safeguard effective implementation despite shrinking resources? Were there new or alternative working methods under consideration which could help preserve the Committee’s work under resource constraints? Would the Committee consider a return to the simplified reporting procedure? How was the systemisation work being carried out? Would there be an outcome which was accessible to delegations and civil society? What steps was the Committee taking to ensure small island developing States were supported?
Responses by Committee Experts
PREETI SARAN, Committee Chair, said the Committee had worked hard to harmonise its working methods, but could not undertake the work due to the absence of additional funding. If discussions on the financial crisis were carried out in New York, this would help the Committee.
LAURA ELISA PEREZ, Committee Expert, said the Committee and its Secretariat were concerned about finding appropriate solutions to the problems being faced. However, this topic relied on budgetary levels, which could be improved. The simplified reporting procedure had advantages but required extensive support. It was an option which had been considered but had not been implemented widely for all States, due to limited budgetary support.
WAN-HEA LEE, Chief of Section, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the simplified reporting procedure involved the preparation of reports on tailored lists of issues prepared for each State. It depended on adequate resources for each Committee, as work would need to be undertaken not based on the State party report, but on human rights research. The Committee’s minimum meeting threshold was lower than that of other Committees, which meant in times of crisis it was scaled back further. The session cuts this year had been increasingly difficult; the Committee had 49 reports overdue, 21 being initial reports, and around 40 reports were backlogged. This dilemma created constraints on both ends and was a very difficult situation for the Committee.
MICHAEL WINFHUR, Committee Expert, said the Committee Experts had used resources to draft lists of issues to enable more time for State reviews, and had done their best to get everything done. There was a limit for what could be done with efficiency alone.
A Committee Expert said the Committee had a working group on follow-up to recommendations but could only review two reports per session. There would likely be five reports pending for review if the Committee convened its second session this year. The Committee needed the commitment of States to implement follow-up and report back. The world was facing a human rights crisis. The lack of predictability affected planning by States beyond the reporting process. Currently, 70 States needed to appear before the Committee to report on their economic, social and cultural rights. States were urged to give priority to the funding needed to ensure treaty bodies could perform their functions normally.
Another Committee Expert said the Committee was pleased to hear the support expressed by many representatives and welcomed views on how States parties could provide practical support to the treaty body system.
An Expert asked if States were considering any measures to increase the impact of the Committee’s work in domestic and legislative practices?
One Expert said the Committee faced great uncertainty about the future; did States have any idea of how the system would resume and when, and whether necessary funds would be arriving?
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CESCR26.006E