Human Rights Committee and Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Celebrate Sixtieth Anniversaries of their Covenants
The Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this afternoon held an event to mark the sixtieth anniversaries of their respective Covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rightsand the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The Human Rights Committee also concluded its one hundred and forty-sixth session after adopting concluding observations on the reports of Austria, Cameroon, Jamaica and Rwanda, the States parties with which the Committee held dialogues during the session; and adopted general comment 38 on the right to freedom of association.
Opening the event, Mahamane Cissé-Gouro, Director, Human Rights Council and Treaty Mechanisms Division, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said 60 years ago, the adoption of the two International Covenants transformed the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into binding legal obligations, anchored in respect for human dignity. While the world had changed profoundly since then, one principle remained constant: human rights were not privileges granted by States, but rights that States were obliged to respect, protect and fulfil.
Preeti Saran, Chair of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said in opening remarks that both Covenants, together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, formed the International Bill of Human Rights. For six decades, they had served as the foundation of international human rights law and inspired a broader system of treaties, institutions and accountability mechanisms. At a time when the rules-based international order faced significant challenges, their importance remained undiminished.
Changrok Soh, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, said 60 years ago, the General Assembly adopted the two Covenants on the same day. Today, the two Committees marked this anniversary together. This was significant, because while civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights, were set out in separate treaties, they had never been separated in people's lives.
Aslan Abashidze, member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Koji Teraya, member of the Human Rights Committee, also delivered opening statements.
The commemoration consisted of three panel discussions. The first was on the theme “The past: 60 years since the adoption of the Covenants”, and featured speakers discussing the achievements and impact of the work of the two Committees over the past 60 years.
Speaking in the panel discussion, moderated by Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, member of the Human Rights Committee, were Asraf Caunhye, Vice-Chair of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Tijana Šurlan, member of the Human Rights Committee; Laura Elisa Pérez, member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Francesca Mingrone, Senior Attorney of the Centre for International Environmental Law, on behalf of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and Roland Chauville, Director of the Centre for Civil and Political Rights. India and the Russian Federation also took the floor.
The next panel discussion, themed “The present: the Covenants in times of crisis”, focused on the role of the international human rights law established by the Covenants in the modern era, particularly in times of emergency and armed conflict.
Speaking in the panel discussion, moderated by Lazhari Bouzid, member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, were Hernán Quezada Cabrera, Vice-Chair of the Human Rights Committee; Ludovic Hennebel, member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Ivan Šimonović, Vice-Chair of the Human Rights Committee; and Lindsey Cameron, Head of the Legal Division at the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Republic of Korea, El Salvador and Chile also spoke.
The final panel discussion turned its attention to “The future: challenges and the way forward”, with speakers discussing emerging issues related to the digital realm and climate change and proposing methods of strengthening synergies between the two Committees for addressing these challenges.
Speaking in the panel discussion, moderated by Changrok Soh, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, were Joo-Young Lee, member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Laurence Helfer, member of the Human Rights Committee; Santiago Fiorio, member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Isabell Kempf, Director of the Institute for Lifelong Learning, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; Lieve Verboven, Chief of the Social Dialogue, Labour Relations and Governance of Work Branch of the International Labour Organization; and Vasilka Sancin, Former Member of the Human Rights Committee. Portugal, Senegal and France also took the floor.
After this event, the Human Rights Committee convened to close its one hundred and forty-sixth session. In closing remarks, Mr. Soh, Committee Chairperson, said that during the intense and productive session, the Committee had held constructive dialogues with the delegations with Austria, Cameroon, Jamaica and Rwanda. In all reviews, the Committee had noted positive developments, identified concerns and made recommendations. The Committee also adopted general comment 38 on the right to freedom of association.
Mr. Soh said that his term was coming to an end at the end of the year. It had been a privilege to lead the Committee. He said his work could not have been possible without the Committee Experts’ support.
All documents relating to the Human Rights Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. Meeting summary releases can be found here. The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.
The Human Rights Committee is expected to hold its one hundred and forty-seventh session from 1 to 19 March 2027. In the session, the Committee is scheduled to review the reports of Costa Rica, Monaco, Mozambique and Poland.
Opening Statements for the Sixtieth Anniversary Commemoration
MAHAMANE CISSÉ-GOURO, Director, Human Rights Council and Treaty Mechanisms Division, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said 60 years ago, the adoption of the two International Covenants transformed the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into binding legal obligations, anchored in respect for human dignity. While the world had changed profoundly since then, one principle remained constant: human rights were not privileges granted by States, but rights that States were obliged to respect, protect and fulfil. The Covenants had stood the test of time. Despite philosophical and political differences, the two Committees had helped build common ground around universal human rights principles, demonstrating that the rights enshrined in the Covenants were complementary and mutually reinforcing, including their approach to environmental protection. Six decades on, the Committees ensured that the treaties responded to evolving realities and contemporary challenges, including recognising the right to water, and affirming that peaceful assembly extended to online spaces.
The Covenants and their monitoring bodies were not merely a legacy of the past but a foundation for the future. At a time when international norms faced growing challenges - development gains were at risk and discrimination and exclusion were resurging - their role was more important than ever. Recent funding shortfalls had led to staffing cuts, cancelled sessions and growing delays, undermining the ability of the treaty bodies to fulfil their mandates. This anniversary should be an opportunity not only to celebrate the achievements of the Covenants and the two Committees, but to renew commitment to the international rules-based order and the human rights obligations that underpinned it.
CHANGROK SOH, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, said 60 years ago, the General Assembly adopted the two Covenants on the same day. A divided world could not agree on one treaty, but it could agree on a shared commitment: that human dignity should be protected by international law despite political differences. Today, the two Committees marked this anniversary together. This was significant because while civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights were set out in separate treaties, they had never been separated in people's lives. The anniversary provided an opportunity to reflect on the past, present and future of the Covenants. Looking back, their impact exceeded expectations. More than 170 States had ratified each Covenant, and the Committees had developed a substantial body of jurisprudence, general comments and recommendations that had influenced national laws and courts around the world.
Yet much remained to be done to ensure their full implementation. The Covenants were often tested most severely during crises, armed conflicts and emergencies. The two Committees had consistently affirmed that human rights obligations did not disappear in such circumstances. Looking ahead, the Covenants remained highly relevant to emerging challenges, including artificial intelligence and climate change. In recent years, treaty bodies had been forced to shorten sessions, postpone reviews and delay their work due to insufficient funding. Mr. Soh said he hoped the anniversary would encourage States to ensure adequate and predictable resources for the treaty body system, while still respecting its independence. Sixty years ago, States made a commitment that transcended their differences. The responsibility today was to ensure that commitment remained meaningful for future generations.
PREETI SARAN, Chair of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said she was delighted to join colleagues from the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Human Rights Committee for the anniversary of both Covenants. She congratulated the Human Rights Committee on the adoption of general comment no. 38 on freedom of association, a right central to both Covenants. Both these Covenants, together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, formed the International Bill of Human Rights. For six decades, they had served as the foundation of international human rights law and inspired a broader system of treaties, institutions and accountability mechanisms. At a time when the rules-based international order faced significant challenges, their importance remained undiminished.
Ms. Saran said she was proud of the Committee's contribution to advancing economic, social and cultural rights. The Covenant established that rights such as health, education, housing, food, social security, work and participation in cultural life were fundamental human rights, and brought issues such as poverty, inequality, discrimination, public spending, development and international cooperation firmly within a human rights framework. The Committee had also addressed emerging challenges, including climate change, business and human rights, access to medicines during COVID-19, and the implications of artificial intelligence. Looking ahead, persistent inequalities, conflicts, economic instability, technological change, climate change, demographic shifts and growing debt burdens required renewed commitment to the full spectrum of human rights. The threats to human dignity were unprecedented, but the Covenant provided a strong framework for addressing them through human rights, development, democracy and international cooperation.
ASLAN ABASHIDZE, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said that a former colleague used to compare the two Committees to the two wings of a bird. Mr. Abashidze congratulated the two Committees on the sixtieth anniversary. This “bird” represented the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The two Covenants formed the International Bill of Human Rights. Some persons had attempted to merge these Covenants with a proposed new treaty body on the right to development.
Since 2006, several attempts had been made to merge the treaty bodies into a single treaty body to deprive the Committees of legal status in the universal human rights system. Efforts had also been made to remove their distinctive characteristics through the harmonisation of working methods. Through the Addis Ababa proposal, attempts had been made, without legal backing, to replace the members of the treaty bodies. As momentum behind this proposal increased, however, there was little effort to address the fundamental problem. The need to allocate sufficient financial resources to enable the treaty bodies to hold regular sessions and effectively discharge their core functions to examine States parties’ reports in a timely and thorough manner, to consider individual communications and to adopt general comments on the key provisions of the Covenants. Financial difficulties appeared to be artificially created to keep the Committees under control. Mr. Abashidze called on members of both Committees to not participate in questionable informal fora aimed at reforming the treaty bodies. The treaty bodies needed to determine the agenda of their sessions independently and concentrate on their core functions. Decisions to reform the treaty bodies needed to be taken not by States but by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and civil society.
KOJI TERAYA, Member of the Human Rights Committee, said the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 without a vote against it. Yet the two Covenants were adopted separately in 1966 amid Cold War divisions. In today's increasingly divided world, commemorating them together carried particular significance. Although separate treaties, they had always shared a common purpose: the protection of human dignity. The principles of indivisibility and interdependence, reaffirmed from Tehran to Vienna, remained at the heart of the human rights system.
These principles reminded all that human rights must be protected as they were experienced in people's lives. No one should be forced to choose between freedom and food, or between prosperity and political rights. They also reminded all that protecting human rights was a shared responsibility. States bore the primary duty, but international cooperation, civil society and the private sector also had important roles to play. Finally, they reminded all that while progress may take time, obligations could not wait. Human rights implementation required sustained engagement, follow-up and accountability. This principle also underpinned ongoing efforts to strengthen the treaty body system and improve its effectiveness.
The two Covenants were foundational pillars of the broader human rights system. The gathering today was not simply a commemoration of a shared past, but an invitation to a more connected future. Sixty years ago, human rights were set out in two Covenants. But human dignity could not be divided in two. The Committees needed to reaffirm the principles that united them and made their common commitments a reality.
Opening Statements for the First Panel Discussion on “The Past: 60 Years Since the Adoption of the Covenants”
ASRAF CAUNHYE, Vice-Chair of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said the sixtieth anniversary should ask how a treaty had enhanced the world’s understanding of justice. A person formally free, but deprived of food, education, healthcare and cultural life did not enjoy freedom in its true meaning. Although this treaty had become law in force in 1976, economic, social and cultural rights were treated as aspirations, while civil and political rights were treated as genuine claims. The history of the Covenant was largely one of overcoming the perception of a false hierarchy. The Covenant did not prescribe an economic model, and the Committee did not replace Governments. When a court accepted that Covenant rights had legal effect, it asked whether a decision was discriminatory, arbitrary or unjustifiably regressive, and whether the affected person could obtain remedies.
Reports, general comments and the Optional Protocol had strengthened the functioning of the Covenant. Mr. Caunhye referenced an individual communication regarding Finland, where the Committee had found a violation of the right to take part in cultural life for the Sami people, regarding reindeer herding. This was where the two Covenants met; different rights, but one coemption of freedom. The deepest achievement of the 60 years was not that every question had been answered, but that the terms of accountability had changed. Poverty, exclusion and preventable deprivation were not merely social facts to be managed but required immediate action. Mr. Caunhye called on every State party to ensure that Covenant rights could be invoked before the domestic courts, and to ratify the Optional Protocol.
TIJANA ŠURLAN, Member of the Human Rights Committee, said that after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly, the need to transform its principles into legally binding international obligations had been recognised. This had not been an easy task. The drafting of the Covenants took almost two decades, from the initial work in 1948 to their adoption in 1966. After their adoption, it took another 10 years for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the First Optional Protocol to enter into force, on 23 March 1976. The 35 States whose ratifications or accessions triggered the entry into force of the Covenant represented all five United Nations regional groups. Following its entry into force in 1976, the Covenant had gradually expanded its membership. Today, there were 175 States parties. This development demonstrated the growing international recognition of civil and political rights as universal rights, although participation in the Covenant was not yet universal.
While commemorating 60 years since the adoption of the Covenant, the event also commemorated 50 years of the Human Rights Committee. The Committee was formally established on 20 September 1976, and its first session took place in March 1977. Over these 50 years, each of the Committee’s mandates and working methods had evolved. Through the adoption of concluding observations, the Committee provided guidance to States parties by interpreting the rights enshrined in the Covenant and elaborating on the measures necessary to ensure their effective implementation. The Committee had worked to improve its working methods and developed follow-up procedures and established special rapporteurs, strengthening its capacity to monitor the implementation of its decisions and the fulfilment of its various mandates.
The Covenant was not merely a historical document. It was a living instrument. Rights that were initially expressed in broad terms had acquired greater depth and practical meaning through the Committee's jurisprudence. In this way, the Covenant's fundamental principles had remained constant, while their application had continued to develop. The Covenant had transformed the way the world understood international law. The Committee’s task today was to ensure that the rights proclaimed 60 years ago remained meaningful, protected and accessible to every individual.
LAURA ELISA PÉREZ, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said the two legally binding instruments, while separate, protected human rights. Even though economic, social and cultural rights had been interpreted as second tier rights, after 60 years, they were being recognised on the same level as civil and political rights, which allowed for this paradigm to be eliminated. Among other achievements, the Covenant had enabled the strengthening of social security and civic space, improved situations of hunger, moved towards sustainable funding and disseminated cultural life and access to scientific progress.
The outcomes achieved by the Committee, established in 1985, were extraordinary. More than 7,000 recommendations had been issued to countries over the years. Over this period, the Committee had also issued 27 general comments, which moved toward improving standards underpinning obligations in the Covenant, and clearly outlining the responsibilities which kept the Covenant alive. This included sexual and reproductive rights, the rights to water, and States’ obligations in the business sector, among others. Nevertheless, significant gaps persisted, endured by many groups experiencing intersectional vulnerability. At the time of the bare face political attacks on human rights, it was essential to renew the world’s commitment towards these two Covenants.
FRANCESCA MINGRONE, Senior Attorney of the Centre for International Environmental Law, on behalf of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, welcomed the opportunity to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the Covenants. The essential contributions of the Covenants and their treaty bodies to human rights extended to environmental harms. Both Committees had developed a growing number of recommendations, decisions and guidance on States’ obligations to take effective action on climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. The four climate-related decisions of the Human Rights Committee continued to provide important precedence on States’ obligations to protect individuals from climate harm. The Committee’s newly adopted general comment 38 on freedom of association also included important guidance on States’ obligations to protect environmental human rights defenders.
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had reinforced its forward-looking approach to human rights by responding to the pressing challenges of today. The Committee’s general comment 27 on the environmental dimension of sustainable development affirmed the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. In its statement on tax policy, the Committee recognised that fair and progressive taxation was a human rights imperative tied to States’ obligations under the Covenant. Together, the Covenants affirmed that economic and climate justice were required under international human rights law and both depended on States mobilising the maximum available resources.
ROLAND CHAUVILLE, Director of the Centre for Civil and Political Rights, said the adoption of both Covenants 60 years ago was an historic moment in the evolution of human rights. This anniversary was an opportunity to assess the current status of civil and political rights and underscore why they needed to be defended. As the world celebrated these anniversaries, all were witnessing attacks on human rights, including restrictions on freedom of assembly, and setbacks to women’s rights. The United Nation’s financial crisis had hit the treaty bodies system hard; however, there was proof that the system worked. According to analysis, almost half of the Human Rights Committee recommendations had led to tangible improvements. In this anniversary year, States were called upon to provide resources to the treaty bodies and ensure accelerated ratification of the two Covenants. Sixty years on, the promises of the Covenant remained more urgent than ever. The Centre for Civil and Political Rights had undertaken various initiatives to commemorate the anniversary.
Discussion
In the discussion, speakers, among other things, welcomed the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary. One speaker said that it was clear that civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights were tied together. The treaty body system needed to be driven by Member States, and any reform process needed to be conducted with greater transparency, considering the views of all States. The Committees needed to continue to guide States in their efforts to reduce inequality, advance social protection and safeguard fundamental liberties, ensuring that they were interpreted in a manner that continually advanced those rights.
Human rights needed to unify States, another speaker said. It was the primary duty of States to promote and protect all human rights, and the specificities of States needed to be borne in mind. Only inclusive dialogue could achieve sustainable and long-lasting decisions in the field of human rights. All States needed to contribute constructively to multilateral cooperation in the field of human rights, with a view to addressing human rights challenges and promoting universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the speaker concluded.
Opening Statements for the Second Panel Discussion on “The Present: The Covenants in Times of Crisis”
HERNÁN QUEZADA CABRERA, Vice-Chair of the Human Rights Committee, said armed conflicts and serious violations of international humanitarian law were taking place in countries across the Middle East, Africa and Europe. Setbacks in fundamental freedoms and rights were reflected in serious attacks on gender equality, freedom of the press, and the protection of minorities in various regions of the world. Additionally, risks associated with artificial intelligence posed existential risks and threatened basic rights, including the rights to life, privacy, health and security. Protests and the indiscriminate use of force, observed in Europe and other regions, raised concerns about police responses and the excessive use of force against demonstrators. The climate and environmental crisis, which had caused biodiversity loss and resource scarcity, disproportionately affected the most vulnerable populations and indigenous peoples. Rising inequalities and discrimination, driven by increasing poverty, continued to widen socioeconomic gaps. Additionally, corruption was a phenomenon that affected the enjoyment of all human rights, which the Human Rights Committee had addressed in many State party reviews
In the twenty-first century, the issue was no longer limited to the ways in which a State violated individuals’ rights, but also to how certain economic structures captured the institutions responsible for protecting the public interest. This raised an important question: could human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, truly be considered guaranteed if the resources essential to their realisation were often transferred to private sectors through opaque processes involving some form of corruption? The United Nations General Assembly resolution 1803, adopted on 14 December 1962, declared the right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth. Several years later, article 1, common to both Covenants, reaffirmed this principle by establishing that all peoples may freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources, and that in no circumstances could people be deprived of their own means of subsistence.
LUDOVIC HENNEBEL, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said the two Covenants were often presented as two distinct human rights systems: one was the heir of struggles against arbitrary rule, the other the heir of social struggles. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guaranteed voice, pluralism and remedy, so that disagreement did not turn into violence. The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights gave freedom its flesh and bones: food, health, housing, work, education and culture. One prevented force from becoming arbitrary; the other prevented deprivation from becoming destiny. They addressed two forms of violence: one against the body, through arbitrary arrest, torture and repression; and the other against life, through hunger, famine, lack of healthcare and denial of education. Like repression, poverty resulted from political choices. Distinct as they were, these forms of violence fed one another. Exclusion weakened institutions, and armed violence destroyed the infrastructure on which social rights depended. In conflict, civil peace and social peace unravelled together.
The forthcoming general comment on economic, social and cultural rights in the context of armed conflict, now being drafted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, needed to identify the rights affected, the obligations that remained, the authorities that answered for violations and the remedies that remained available before, during and after conflict. To that end, its drafting would have to confront questions of extraterritoriality, effective control over territory, non-State actors, the interplay with humanitarian law, and minimum core obligations. By adopting yesterday its general comment on freedom of association, the Human Rights Committee showed that law could respond to the urgency of its time and produce authoritative interpretations. War and social injustice imposed upon the international community the same urgency.
In times of crisis and war, institutions could collapse, resources could dwindle, populations could be displaced, but people never ceased to be a subject of rights. Giving the Covenants their full legal force was the task of the Committees. The Covenants’ power lay in preserving, in the very midst of destruction, the conditions of a shared humanity — and in making possible a peace that was more than the silence of the guns.
IVAN ŠIMONOVIĆ, Vice-Chair of the Human Rights Committee, said from Ukraine to Gaza, Sudan to Myanmar, the world was witnessing shocking atrocities with civilians paying a terrible price and impunity remaining widespread. What did the right to life mean without food, water or medical care? What did human dignity mean when homes, schools and hospitals were destroyed? Civil and political rights could not be fully protected without economic, social and cultural rights, and vice-versa. It was vital to make war, atrocity crimes and violations less likely. Discrimination, exclusion and injustice were often the root causes of armed conflict. Human rights and respect for the rule of law could help prevent it. Human rights protection in peace time was the first line of defence against atrocities in wartime. However, it was important to address the entire conflict cycle, including identifying early warning signs and acting before violence escalated. In armed conflict it was vital to protect civilians and demand accountability, and after conflict, to ensure that human rights guided peace efforts.
There was a paradox; while stronger human rights were needed, human rights were increasingly under pressure, including in peace time. Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the gap between human rights commitments and their implementation had been growing. An impressive human rights system had been built, but was it being sufficiently used? The Committee’s concluding observations, views and general comments could help identify risks earlier and guide preventive action. But recommendations which stayed on paper did not protect anyone; there needed to be more practical recommendations, systemic follow-up and stronger implementation. The Committee could not do it alone. Success depended on efforts from States, United Nations bodies, academics and civil society. Stronger human rights protection in peace time was the best investment in preventing conflicts and atrocities and would be a worthy way to mark 60 years of the two Covenants. It was vital to mobilise political support, strengthen implementation and turn recommendations into action.
LINDSEY CAMERON, Head of the Legal Division at the International Committee of the Red Cross, said today’s discussions related to the mandate of the International Committee of the Red Cross to prevent and alleviate the suffering of victims of armed conflict and to protect them from the worst excesses of human behaviour, like extrajudicial killings, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and enforced disappearance. When essential needs of entire populations were not met, prospects for a dignified life and livelihoods were at stake. There were currently around 130 armed conflicts ongoing, with many causing staggering levels of death and mental suffering, prolonged disruption of essential services and degradation of health systems. Many of these crises were exacerbated by the fact that many conflicts went on for a long time.
The law imposed by the Covenants was a practical tool that informed dialogue with States and parties to conflict, with the aim to mitigate human suffering and humanitarian consequences. International human rights law continued to apply in situations of armed conflict, including prohibitions on ill-treatment. The Covenants helped to provide guidance in areas that could not be covered by international humanitarian law, such as the right to quality medical care and on the accessibility of food. In this regard, the work of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to create a general comment on rights in armed conflict was of great relevance. In closing, the speaker congratulated the Committees on the anniversary and expressed willingness to continue engaging with them.
Discussion
In the discussion, speakers, among other things, aligned themselves with the spirit of the commemorations of the anniversaries, and congratulated both Committees. After six decades, the international community had transformed shared aspirations into legally binding obligations and recognised that human dignity could only be enjoyed when all of the rights enshrined in both Covenants progressed jointly. Together, the Covenants confirmed the indivisibility and independence of human rights. All Committee members, past and present, were appreciated for their role in translating these rights into reality. Speakers reiterated their commitment to both Committees and would continue to engage in open dialogue with them.
Looking ahead, it was important for the Covenants to remain relevant in the digital age to strengthen their implementation. It was vital that the Committees were granted sufficient resources by States to fulfil their mandates. The sixtieth anniversary should allow States to renew their commitment to the mechanisms supervising the treaties. Throughout six decades, the work of the Committees had consolidated indispensable normative standards of international law.
Opening Statements for the Third Panel Discussion on “The Future: Challenges and the Way Forward”
JOO-YOUNG LEE, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, invited the audience to envisage two young people: a girl who was 10 years old and a man who was 20 years old, and to imagine their lives 10 and 20 years from now. Would they have work? What kind of work? Would a machine decide whether they got a job, a loan, a place at university? Would the water they drank and the air they breathed be clean? How would they find meaning and joy? Many things would shape the future, but two stood out: artificial intelligence and the economical limits of the planet. These were not inevitable, nor forces of nature, but were the results of human choices. Who got to decide the future of this girl and this young man?
This was where the Covenant mattered. While in many countries, governments were cutting budgets, and social protection, health and education were treated as a cost, the Covenant stated otherwise. These rights were the foundation, for today and for the future, and investing in them was how a society prepared for artificial intelligence and for a changing planet. In many places, democracy was also under pressure, and civic space was shrinking. Under the Covenant, States must let people say what future they wanted, and how they wanted to contribute to it. States' obligations also reached beyond the present. What they did with the planet's resources today decided what the next generations would inherit.
The Covenant was adopted 60 years ago and the Committee’s task was to keep the Covenant relevant, which they had already started. In general comment no. 25, on science, the Committee addressed both the benefits and the risks of new technologies, and in general comment no. 27, adopted last year, the Committee addressed the environmental dimension of sustainable development. The Committee needed to keep reading the Covenant in light of today and the future, and when necessary revisiting interpretations, methods and the questions asked to States. Ms. Lee hoped the girl and the young man would be able to write their own futures. The Covenant stated that countries must find a way to make sure these choices were made with them, and not for them.
LAURENCE HELFER, Member of the Human Rights Committee, said artificial intelligence was reshaping the exercise of public and private power of individuals and how that power was challenged. International human rights law provided established standards to assess the impacts of artificial intelligence tools such as predictive algorithms, facial recognition and large language models. Yet, those standards required careful attention to both the risks and benefits of artificial intelligence for the exercise of the rights enshrined in the Covenants.
Artificial intelligence models could reproduce exclusion, such as in policing and public benefits, that contravened the equal treatment guarantees of the Covenants. Facial recognition software enabled pervasive identification of individuals in public spaces. Accurate tools could invade privacy, chill free expression and deter peaceful assemblies. To be compatible with the Covenants, all such tools needed to respect the requirements of legality, legitimate aim, necessity and proportionality. Efforts also needed to be exerted to support independent review processes to challenge automated decisions.
On the positive side, artificial intelligence had the capacity to strengthen the protections of the Covenants. It could help document patterns of violations by analysing large data sets that investigators would otherwise miss. It could also improve access to remedies for Covenant violations by reducing barriers for victims and systematising the review of individual complaints, though this should not undermine effective exercise of human judgement by judges. Artificial intelligence could also enhance participation in public life, by translating texts in accessible formats. States needed to respect and ensure the rights in the Covenant and provide effective remedies for violations. In the context of new and powerful artificial intelligence tools, this obligation required developing more precise standards about permissible uses, oversight and remedies, as well as accountability for both governments and private technology companies.
SANTIAGO FIORIO, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said he was honoured to be there as the youngest person to have occupied a seat in the history of the Committee. After six decades, the international community had taken a decisive step to make a fundamentally human conviction, a legal binding commitment. This commemoration should not just invite the Experts to look back, but to think about the responsibility incumbent now and in the future. The enjoyment of human rights depended on concrete decisions and priorities. Both Covenants urged States parties to deploy necessary resources to make the rights effective, affirming that the Covenants were two expressions of a single reality. Although both Covenants had their own characteristics, they were based on a single commitment.
The Committee’s work could not simply be limited to concluding observations or dialogues but should be the beginning of a process which led to implementation. The treaty bodies needed to strengthen their work and ensure their recommendations were consolidated as useful tools for States. It was important to promote the establishment and strengthening of national mechanisms to promote the implementation of reports, and ensure they had clear mandates and sufficient institutional support. States needed to continue to see treaty bodies as constructive allies, who made recommendations to improve individuals’ quality of life. Mr. Fiorio expressed hope that the necessary resource commitments would be made, despite the United Nations liquidity crisis.
ISABELL KEMPF, Director of the Institute for Lifelong Learning, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, congratulated the Committees on the sixtieth anniversary. In 1985, Neil Postman contrasted two warnings about the future from Orwell, the author of 1984, and Huxley, the author of The Brave New World. What Orwell feared was those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Today, artificial intelligence gave Huxley’s warning a new urgency. Humans were overfed with information, yet starving for wisdom. The capacity to know the truth, to question power and to act with consciousness was under threat. This was why it was important to reclaim the true purpose of education: to empower learners to be critical, creative and courageous members of their communities and act together for the common good.
Lifelong learning equipped individuals with the critical thinking, digital literacy and moral clarity needed to master artificial intelligence and ensure that technology served humanity rather than polarising society. The international community needed to dismantle barriers facing older persons, indigenous and rural communities, persons with disabilities and minorities, so digital exclusion did not turn into violations of human rights. As healthcare, social protection and public services became mediated by artificial intelligence, these groups needed not just technical skills but also the capacity to access, critically evaluate and use information, protect their own data and recognise misinformation. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization was ready to collaborate with the Committees to develop a statement on protecting the right to education in the context of artificial intelligence and lifelong learning.
LIEVE VERBOVEN, Chief of the Social Dialogue, Labour Relations and Governance of Work Branch of the International Labour Organization, congratulated the members of the two Committees on the sixtieth anniversaries of the Covenants. One particular right set at the intersection of both Covenants and protected by both was the freedom of association. The two Committees had jointly acknowledged this intersection, linking democratic participation, civic space and collective action with the rights of workers and their protection, and with social justice and human dignity. Freedom of association enabled and empowered workers and organizations to organise themselves and negotiate effectively. This ensured that when artificial intelligence was introduced, it was discussed, leading to protections.
The unique bridging function of freedom of association illustrated a close relationship between the two Covenants and the normative framework of the International Labour Organization. This framework recognised that workers and employers needed to be able to freely and collectively organise themselves. It was the only international treaty explicitly referred to in both Covenants, recognising freedom of association as a foundational right, cutting across the full spectrum of human rights. Today as they celebrated the full spectrum of human rights, they also celebrated the space that freedom of association rightly occupied within it.
Discussion
In the discussion, speakers, among other things, congratulated the two Committees on their groundbreaking efforts despite the challenges they faced. The Covenants remained living instruments, providing a framework for the promotion of human rights, serving as a safeguard for individuals, and ensuring that States remained accountable for their obligations. Their relevance lay not only in the protection of the rights they enshrined, but in their continued capacity to guide the international community’s collective response to emerging challenges. They were vital to protecting the spirit of the rule of law.
Speakers expressed serious concerns at the grave constraints and large backlog of work faced by the Committees and all treaty bodies in the context of the current United Nations budgetary and liquidity crisis. One speaker proposed a predictable timeline of meetings and events for treaty bodies and digitisation of the treaty bodies’ work. Multilingualism was a critical precondition for the treaty body system to remain truly inclusive.
Some speakers said artificial intelligence, widespread digital technology and climate change raised new concerns around the protection of human dignity and the right to private life and access to essential services. These developments called for the adaption of national and international protection mechanisms. One speaker called for increased synergies between the two Committees, improved support for States in following up on recommendations, and promotion of technical assistance and national capacity building.
One speaker said the development and use of artificial intelligence had a remarkable environmental footprint. People needed to decide when they were obligated to use these tools and when their tasks could be achieved otherwise. They also needed to examine how to accord responsibilities for the outcomes that were produced by artificial intelligence tools. In the future, more open market artificial intelligence tools would be developed. These issues needed to be addressed, the speaker said.
Closing Remarks for the Sixtieth Anniversary Commemoration
PREETI SARAN, Chair of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, thanked all participants in the anniversary event. The world was changing at an incredible pace. Unlike previous periods of major upheaval, today there was international agreement on the minimum guarantees of a dignified life that States must uphold. The two Covenants served as an anchor during these turbulent times. The Committees would live up to the expectations placed upon them.
CHANGROK SOH, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, said that, listening to the discussions, he was reminded of people who had suffered injustices and discrimination and had turned to the Committees because they could not find justice at home. He was also reminded of human rights defenders who stood behind these people, often at great personal risk. What the Committees had achieved over the past 60 years would not have been possible without their dedication and sacrifices. The future would depend not only on the strength of the Covenants’ principles, but also on the people willing to defend them. That responsibility rested with the Committees and the international community. These people had entrusted their hope in the Committees and in human rights to make a difference in their lives. Mr. Soh expressed hope that the Committees would continue to be worthy of that trust.
Statements Marking the Closing of the Human Rights Committee’s One Hundred and Forty-Sixth Session
CHANGROK SOH, Committee Chairperson, said that the Committee had completed a productive session, in which it had held constructive dialogues with the delegations of Austria, Cameroon, Jamaica and Rwanda. In all reviews, the Committee had noted positive developments, identified concerns and made recommendations. The concluding observations would be issued on the webpage of the Committee later today.
The Committee had also adopted a follow-up report on the concluding observations of Bolivia, Iraq, Luxembourg, Togo and Uruguay, and 10 lists of issues prior to reporting related to Bahrain, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Thailand, Tunisia and Uzbekistan. In addition, it had adopted 22 drafts concerning 73 individual communications. Of the decisions taken by the Committee, 36 communications were decided on the merits (so-called “Views”), 16 communications were declared inadmissible, and 21 were discontinued. Among the communications decided on the merits, the Committee found violations in 35. Due to lack of time, the Committee had had to postpone the consideration and adoption of 10 drafts covering 20 communications.
Mr. Soh also reported that the Committee had adopted general comment 38 on the right to freedom of association. He thanked all States parties, United Nations entities, civil society organizations and other stakeholders for their contributions during the drafting of the general comment.
The Committee’s one hundred and forty-seventh session is expected to be held from 1 to 19 March 2027. During the session, the Committee is scheduled to review the periodic reports of Costa Rica, Liechtenstein, Mozambique and Poland, adopt lists of issues prior to reporting and consider a number of individual communications.
Mr. Soh said that the session had been challenging for several reasons. The Committee could not have been so productive were it not for the support of its secretariat and the Petitions Section of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. He extended thanks to Committee Experts for their hard work, commitment and teamwork, to United Nations entities and civil society organizations that had contributed to the session, including the “CCPR Centre”, and to the technical staff who made the Committee’s work possible.
Mr. Soh said that his term was coming to an end at the end of the year. It had been a privilege to lead the Committee. He said his work could not have been possible without the Committee Experts’ support.
Several Experts then took the floor to express thanks to the Chair for his efforts over the past two years, and to the six Committee Experts whose terms were ending at the end of the year.
___________
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.
CCPR26.014E