LE COMITÉ DES DROITS DE L'HOMME SE PENCHE SUR UN PROJET DE DIRECTIVES RÉVISÉES SUR LA PRÉSENTATION DE RAPPORTS PAR LES ÉTATS PARTIES

The Human Rights Committee this afternoon discussed draft revised guidelines for reports to be submitted by States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Presenting the draft guidelines, Committee Expert Helen Keller, the Rapporteur for this question, recalled that the reason the Committee had to revise its guidelines was so as to harmonize them with the practice of the other human rights treaty bodies. The Committee had been requested to adopt its new guidelines by the end of 2009; they were, therefore, behind schedule at this point. The reporting guidelines were for the use of States parties and sought to assist them in providing complete and well structured reports on how the Covenant was being implemented in their countries.

We have not reinvented the wheel here, said Ms. Keller, noting that the draft revised guidelines largely followed current Committee practice. However, a new element had been introduced, namely, that the Committee would prepare and adopt a list of issues to be transmitted to the States parties, the responses to which would then constitute the State party’s report. It was highlighted that, if States parties agreed to that new simplified procedure, it would only be applicable following the submission of their third periodic report. What they were considering was an optional working method, to which the Committee and States parties would both have to consent.

Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the draft guidelines set out this new procedure and were therefore totally new. Ms. Keller therefore suggested that the Committee consider the three new paragraphs first.

In the ensuing discussion on the paragraphs mentioned, a Committee Member said that the draft revised guidelines would be an excellent basis for the Committee’s work. Another Committee Member felt that the draft raised several problems. The new procedure would mean an increased workload for the task force charged with drawing up the list of issues. There was also a concern about the impact of that new procedure on the interaction between Committee members and non-governmental organizations. Moreover, while it had been requested that the human rights treaty bodies harmonized their procedures, it was pointed out that, at this stage, only the Committee against Torture seemed disposed to accept this new procedure. Perhaps, if accepted, they should consider the procedure on trial basis for a defined time, say a five-year period.

Another Committee member said the new procedure, by concentrating on a list of questions sent prior to the submission of the report, opened the Committee up to the risk of being accused of relaying the concerns of “outside sources”, whereas, usually, the Committee based its consideration on information furnished by the State party concerned and not on such outside sources.

A Committee Expert stressed that the Human Rights Committee – which had formerly been a pioneer – needed to evolve and meet changing needs. It was not useful for the Committee to continue to systematically ask questions on each article of the Covenant, in particular those relating to the constitutional framework. This new procedure of a list of questions to be responded to could, if it were sufficiently flexible, allow the Committee to evolve in the right direction.


During this afternoon’s discussion, the Secretary of the Committee against Torture, Joao Nataf, presented the practice of his Committee with regard to the procedure of using the list of issues as the basis for State party reports. After a trial period of two years, the Committee against Torture had decided to adopt this procedure as its standard practice, underscoring that the procedure remained a voluntary one that States could choose or not. For its part, the Committee against Torture had agreed to review reports presented under the new procedure as soon as possible, but no later than one year from their submission.

Having debated the three paragraphs regarding the new procedure, but without having taken a decision on them, the Committee then turned at the end of its meeting to a paragraph-by-paragraph examination of the rest of the draft revised reporting guidelines. A particularly long discussion was held over the wording of time limits for submissions, given a lack of timely translations of reports into all official languages by the Secretariat in the past. Experts concerns were to maximize the timely submission and translation of reports, while trying to avoid situations in which Members were not able to have translations available.

At the end of the meeting, it was decided to continue consideration of the draft guidelines later this session.

The Committee’s next public meeting will be held on Friday, 23 October, at 3 p.m., when it will discuss a draft General Comment on Article 19 of the Covenant (on freedom of expression).


Ce document est destiné à l'information; il ne constitue pas un document officiel

CT09019F