NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ADDRESS COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this afternoon heard statements from representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with respect to the report of Nepal, which it will examine during the current session, as well as on the impact of trade agreements on economic, social and cultural rights. It also discussed issues relating to national human rights institutions and the right to education.

NGO speakers spoke on Nepal, the impact of trade agreements on economic, social and cultural rights, the connection between these rights and torture, and the importance of justiciability. On Nepal, they noted that poverty was a grave problem, and that it was in particular wide spread in rural areas and among representatives of low-caste and ethnic groups. The existing economic, social and cultural status of Nepal suggested that it had failed to meet the obligations originating from the provisions of the Covenant, a speaker said. On trade agreements, it was said that human rights mechanisms, in particular the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, had a crucial role to play in ensuring that trade and trade-related rules helped to promote human rights and not undermine them. With regards to torture, economic, social and cultural rights had an important role to play in ending the practise of torture.

The representatives of the following non-governmental organizations took the floor: FIAN International, Rural Reconstruction Nepal, 3-D-Trade, the World Organization Against Torture, and the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions.

At the beginning of the meeting, Gianni Magazzeni, Coordinator of the National Institutions Unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said it was of the utmost importance that treaty bodies emphasised, during their discussions with State parties, the importance of having national institutions that fully complied with the Paris Principles so that they could optimally play their role in the protection and promotion system, act as a guarantor of international norms at the national level, and use their prominent position to effectively interact with international organizations as well as with national Governments.

INGEBORG BREINES of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) said UNESCO had just presented, in the context of the Education for All Week, which took place last week, a study on education under attack. UNESCO was alarmed at the increase in violence against educational institutions. When it came to the right to education, which was at the core of UNESCO’s mandate, it had organised workshops on challenges and perspectives on law and education, and it was clear that the rapid growth of private universities warranted the need for regulatory frameworks, especially to ensure quality control. A shared concern of the Committee and UNESCO’s Committee on Conventions was more effective monitoring of the right to education.

After the international organizations and NGOs made their presentations, Committee Experts made comments and asked questions which were answered by the representatives.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 1 May, it will begin its consideration of the second periodic report of Nepal (E/C.12/NPL/2).

Discussion on National Human Rights Institutions and Right to Education

GIANNI MAGAZZENI, Coordinator of the National Institutions Unit at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), said OHCHR attached great importance to the development and strengthening of national human rights protection systems, stemming directly from the 2002 Secretary-General’s Agenda for Further Change. An enhanced country engagement and an increased focus on national human rights protection systems was crucial to addressing human rights challenges and protection gaps. It was therefore of the utmost importance that treaty bodies emphasised, during their discussions with State parties, the importance of having national institutions that fully complied with the Paris Principles so that they could optimally play their role in the protection and promotion system, act as a guarantor of international norms at the national level, and use their prominent position to effectively interact with international organizations as well as with national Governments.

National institutions were essential partners for treaty bodies to rely on, as they were able to work to ensure that national legislation was consistent with the Constitution and with international human rights norms, and that the administration of justice conformed to human rights standards, and provided effective remedies, particularly to minorities and the most vulnerable groups in society. National human rights institutions had a vital role to play in the treaty body process, and the Paris Principles further legitimised their role. Among other responsibilities, the institutions should encourage ratification of international instruments and contribute to States’ reports, which were required to be submitted by States parties to United Nations bodies or committees. The Committee was encouraged whenever possible to accept supplementary reports prepared by the national institutions, and provide as frequently as possible specific opportunities for the institutions to make oral presentations during meetings of the Committee, in addition to accepting written information, prior to the formal examination of a State party report.

In comments, Committee Experts said one of the concerns that human rights Ombudsmen had was that they had no communication with treaty bodies, and felt and believed that their basic role was to oppose and challenge the States’ reports. Human rights institutions felt that it was not their role to participate in and prepare States parties reports, and that there was a need to ensure a closer relationship between treaty bodies and human rights institutions. The Paris Principles were vital, but it was clear that national human rights institutions were becoming ever stronger, and should have a separate role, one which clearly set them apart from the States from where they came and from other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), an Expert said.

Another Expert pointed out that the situation and status of the national human rights institutions required further clarification. The Committee’s problem, an Expert said, was the factual situation in the States parties. There was a great variety in the situation of institutions across the world, another said, in particular with regards to their independence.

Mr. Magazzeni, responding, said that national human rights institutions that had gone through the Paris Principles process could and did play a very important role in providing information to the treaty body system, and ensuring that there was follow-up to the recommendations and suggestions submitted by the treaty body to the State party following consideration of its report. Treaty bodies could provide these institutions with various opportunities, such as presenting a report in the pre-sessional period, and could adopt a harmonised procedure for interacting with the latter. The treaty bodies should recognise the crucial importance that the national human rights institutions had, in particular with regards to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. On how to strengthen the links between Ombudsmen and the international treaty system, Ombudsmen should ensure they complied with the Paris Principles, and seek admittance to the international body that ensured this. It was an important area for further cooperation and dialogue, and there should be a more structured dialogue in this regard.

In further comments, Experts noted that according to the Paris Principles, national human rights institutions should cooperate or participate in the preparation of reports, and should also be independent. Maybe the Paris Principles needed to be amended with regards to the autonomy and independence required, an Expert suggested. An Expert asked whether it was good practice when independent human rights mechanisms were financed from abroad, or whether this was interference in the sovereign rights of States. The Committee needed all credible sources of information in order to assess the reports of the States parties, an Expert said. National human rights institutions should host and conduct meetings on the follow-up and implementation of treaty bodies recommendations with a wide range of national participants including the Government and NGOs, another pointed out, saying that this raised issues of the independence of the national human rights institutions. The Committee should assess the extent of their independence, several Experts said.

In concluding remarks, Mr. Magazzeni said the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would make available the requested documentation, as well as further information on the status of national human rights institutions. There was no question that a State’s report to the Committee was the responsibility of the State and the Government, but there was a possibility for the national human rights institution to contribute, and the latter had a duty to inform on the internal human rights situation in the country. The national human rights institutions had a duty to contribute to the work of the Committee, but not to challenge the work of the State party. Most often, financing of national human rights institutions came from the State budget, and in order to preserve their independence, it was often handled directly by the institution, without intervention of the Ministry of Finance, in order to preserve the institution’s independence.

INGEBORG BREINES, of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said UNESCO was presently making all-out efforts to work more closely with other United Nations bodies in accordance with the high-level report Working As One. These United Nations agencies were primordial in ensuring that the new United Nations would be a body of greater substance. There should be greater coordination between the United Nations and the Bretton Woods Institutions at a national level. UNESCO national commissions should help to this effect on the ground. It had been hoped that there would be a presentation at the Committee’s session of UNESCO’s normative instruments on culture, but this would have to be postponed, maybe to the next session of the Committee, or the session of the Human Rights Council in November. This presentation would focus on three United Nations Conventions, and an interchange with the Committee should take place in this context.

UNESCO had just presented, in the context of the Education for All Week, which took place last week, a study on education under attack. UNESCO was alarmed at the increase in violence against educational institutions. When it came to the right to education, which was at the core of UNESCO’s mandate, it had organised workshops on challenges and perspectives on law and education, and it was clear that the rapid growth of private universities warranted the need for regulatory frameworks, especially to ensure quality control. A shared concern of the Committee and UNESCO’s Committee on Conventions was more effective monitoring of the right to education.

In a question, an Expert referred to national committees and institutions that participated in the work of UNESCO, and noted that in Algeria the UNESCO committee appeared to be holding information. How did the national committees work within UNESCO, he asked. Another Expert noted that UNESCO’s work was greatly appreciated by the Committee, and said that not only education but also culture should be given greater prominence.

Responding, Ms. Breines said the national commissions of UNESCO were established according to the Constitution of that body, and it was in fact a hang-over of the body preceding UNESCO which had understood that there was a need for national commissions of some sort. These bodies were established by the national Government, and were given all information and access to expertise within UNESCO; however, the Government decided if the commission was to be independent, or under a UNESCO-related Ministry. It was sad to hear that these commissions were sitting on information, as this might be due to a lack of resources for publishing and making public the information that they held. Countries should use them in some cases better than was the situation today.

In further comments, an Expert noted that there were new and further forms of discrimination, in particular with regards to education. The issue of reservations and ratifications of the Convention was also of note. Responding, Ms. Breines said the Convention on Education was not as disseminated as UNESCO would have liked, but further information on the level of ratification would be made available to the Experts.

NGO Statements on Nepal

ESTER WOLF, FIAN International, said about 6 million people, or 23 per cent of Nepal’s population was under-nourished. Poverty was for the most part a rural phenomenon. One of the main factors affecting food security was the lack of access to productive resources such as land. Another important obstacle to the realisation of the right to food was discrimination, mostly against indigenous groups, lower-caste Dalits and women. The Committee should closely follow future legal developments regarding the right to food within the new constitutional context; urge Nepal to carry out and implement a genuine land reform in order to improve access to food; urge the State to ensure that food distribution reached the most vulnerable and that programmes were carried out with greater transparency, accountability and effective monitoring; and put in place effective programmes to fight caste discrimination and bonded labour.

R. P. GAUTAM, of Rural Reconstruction Nepal, said Nepal was now undergoing a process of political transition, after a decade-long armed conflict and monarchical autocracy. The unequal social, political and economic relations that were believed to be sustaining structural poverty, hunger and other socio-economic discrepancies were yet pervasive. A fresh opportunity as well as challenge had now arisen in the country: the failure or delay in addressing the key issues of deprivation, exclusion and marginalisation of already disadvantaged people could evoke public disappointment and resentment. Although poverty cut across all caste and ethnic groups, it was most experienced in the Dalit and ethnic minority communities living in rural villages. The enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by the Nepalese was still a distant dream: whatever commitments were made at different international and national platforms by the State to guarantee those rights were yet to be implemented. The existing economic, social and cultural status of Nepal suggested that it had failed to meet the obligations originating from the provisions of the Covenant.

In questions on Nepal, Experts commented, among other things, on the need to submit reports as early as possible in order to ensure that Experts had time to consider them and they would therefore be of more value than they were now. What were the tools needed to remedy the dire situation of poverty in Nepal, Experts asked, inquiring whether these problems were related to democracy and the way religions were perceived. Another Expert urged caution with regards to advocating land reform. Was there any change in political will, another Expert asked, with regards to change and progress.

Responding Ms. Wolfe said that FIAN had just received the information, and it had not been possible to submit the report any earlier. On poverty and hunger in urban areas, it should be borne in mind that the large part of this was in rural areas; however, the urban areas should not be neglected. Perfect democracy was not a solution: programmes to remedy the situation were needed. There were encouraging signs in this regard.

Mr. Gautam, also responding, said there were clear links between policies and poverty. If good policies were designed, then of course poverty could be eliminated. Now the problem, even after the restoration of democracy, was the lack of willpower of the Government to address these issues: it was primarily focussed on city-centric politics and power-play, and there had been no significant contribution towards helping the people to change their daily lives. The Government should work democratically to at least answer these issues. There appeared to be no political will for change, but it was hoped that it would appear in days to come.

At this stage, Nepal was faced with some major problems, in particular with regards to economic, social and cultural rights, an Expert said. Nepal first required political stability; second, the shortage of financial resources remained a grave problem. Peace and development were closely linked with human rights. It was hoped the Government and all the political forces would place national stability as their primary goal, as only with this approach would economic development be ensured.

Mr. Gautam, responding to this, said peace and stability could enhance the economic growth and progression of the country, but in comparison, civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights had not progressed equally. The time had come to concentrate on the latter sector, and the Government needed to be urged to act more urgently on this issue.

NGO Statements on further issues

CAROLINE DOMMEN, 3-D-Trade, said human rights mechanisms, in particular the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, had a crucial role to play in ensuring that trade and trade-related rules helped to promote human rights and did not undermine them. Many social security systems were being privatised and subjected to international competitions; access to food was being undermined by international agreements; new intellectual property rules made it harder for farmers to save and exchange seeds, and lives were being made more precarious by having to pay for formerly-free seeds; access to educational materials, water, and to participate in cultural life were being impacted negatively by trade rules, which discriminated against groups that were already marginalized. The Committee’s efforts to address trade-related issues and to discuss these with States parties were appreciated, and it was hoped the Committee would continue to take the issue forward, and increasingly raise the issues with States parties. The Committee could raise three questions on a systematic basis with States parties in order to raise these issues and to show that someone was concerned about the effects on human rights of trade policies.

Commenting on this statement, an Expert said that the NGO was speaking the Committee’s language, and they were on the same wavelength. Another Expert expressed gratitude for recommendations on the vital issue of trade-related policies of the States parties. The recommendations proposed by 3-D Trade were a matter of priority, but were also quite hard, in particular with regards to Nepal, an Expert said, saying that countries that were involved in investment in other countries where there were problems should be consulted. There should be further precise analysis of who gained and who lost from free trade. The Committee should put its money where its mouth was, another Expert said.

Responding to these questions, Ms. Dommen said on whether States could bring trade laws and policies in line with human rights obligations, it was possible, although difficult to change agreements, but every day new agreements were being negotiated, and all of these were raising the floor for the level of trade agreements. There was real lee-way to keep an eye on these agreements and ensure that they did not go too far, and the Committee could be a significant voice in this regard if it chose to be so.

TOM MCCARTHY, World Organization Against Torture, said today’s debate showed that the Committee was still in the forefront of issues that were much more difficult than other Committees had to face. The World Organization Against Torture had underlined the importance of economic, social and cultural rights to ending torture, disappearances, executions and domestic violence, and this had been scientifically proved through statistical analysis. There were a number of reasons for hope in this regard. The Committee should deal with this issue on a systematic basis, helping non-governmental organizations to raise the issue, both those dealing with torture and economic issues, in order to make the link between culture and violence clear in all countries, and providing guidance as to how to do this.

CLAUDE CAHN, Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions, said in the future it would be seen that the coming period was a land-mark episode in the efforts to ensure justiciability for economic, social and cultural rights. In that context, a number of States parties that would come before the Committee in coming weeks had not yet made it clear that they would make this structure as clear, strong and rich as it could be. A protocol allowing groups of individuals and individuals to make complaints under the European Charter had improved society, such as in the case of Portugal, which had ended child labour as a result of such a complaint. States and communities as a whole could benefit if they engaged in the elaboration of this process. States coming before the Committee should make it clear as to where they stood with regards to the Optional Protocol. States’ efforts to trim the scope of the Independent Experts work and their independence could cause major harm to the system.

Responding, an Expert said that the Committee had always taken a clear position on this since 1996, but the previous statement had shown the depth of the involvement of the NGOs in this issue, and a word of thanks was owed to those international NGOs which had constantly battled for the Optional Protocol. That the new Human Rights Council had given importance to this issue was also encouraging. The Committee looked forward to constructive work on this issue. Another Expert said domestic violence existed in developing and developed countries, and was not necessarily therefore linked to economic, social and cultural rights. Another Expert asked whether any investigation had been made into the lack of education as a cause of a lot of domestic violence, and if not, would it be made. The most important step now was to establish an operational tie between the Protocol and each and every article of the Covenant, another Expert said.

Responding, Mr. McCarthy said that not responding to economic, social and cultural rights was a cue to violence. Extremism was fomented because of poverty, among other reasons. The connection between the Convention’s articles and poverty should be made evident.


For use of the information media; not an official record

ESC07003E