HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE HOLDS FOURTH MEETING WITH STATES PARTIES TO THE COVENANT

The Human Rights Committee this morning held its Fourth Meeting with States Parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Committee reported on progress achieved as a result of new working methods, in particular the reduction in its backlog following the institution of a new procedure for considering the admissibility of individual complaints, and the increased reporting by States parties following new procedures for consideration of periodic reports and for follow up to concluding observations. It also presented its views on treaty body reform, and particularly addressed the High Commissioner's proposal to institute a unified standing treaty body to replace the seven existing organs.

States parties acknowledged the benefit of the biannual dialogue held with the Committee. The majority of States parties welcomed the new working methods that had been instituted with a view to streamlining the Committee's work, as well as lightening the reporting burdens of States parties and encouraging them to report on time. Several States made further suggestions, such as sharing information with other treaty bodies on overdue reports and elaborating guidelines for the formulation of General Comments. Many delegations hailed the Committee's suggestion of using the list of questions formulated by Experts as the basis of reporting following submission of initial reports, which would rationalize and simplify the reporting process.

While most States parties saw merit in the Committee's practical suggestions for short-term solutions to treaty body reform, and many concurred with the Committee's view that a unified treaty body was untenable, others cautioned that reform was a long-term and ongoing process and more comprehensive solutions such as the unified standing treaty body should not be ruled out. In addition, a number of States parties drew attention to the need for technical assistance in drafting reports and implementing their treaty obligations, and expressed the wish that development needs be given greater weight by the Committee in its consideration of reports.

Speaking this morning were representatives of the following States parties to the Covenant: Sweden, Argentina, Belgium, Norway, Australia, Canada, Philippines, Ecuador, Tunisia, United States, Indonesia, Egypt, Côte d’Ivoire, Thailand and Mexico.

The Committee will reconvene in public at 4.30 p.m. on Monday, 30 November, to take up its consideration of a revised general comment on article 14 of the International Covenant, on the right to a fair trial.

Statements by Committee Experts

Regarding reporting under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, WALTER KÄLIN, Committee Expert, said the Committee had been faced with a growing backlog of pending cases under the Optional Protocol. By early 2005 some 340 cases were pending. The Committee had set up a working group to streamline the working methods of reporting on the Optional Protocol and to reduce the backlog. In the summer of 2005 the Committee considered the recommendations of the working group and adopted a number of them. The most important amendment allowed for the Working Group on Communications to declare communications inadmissible, providing that there was no challenge to that decision by another Committee Member in plenary meeting. Another important change allowed the Special Rapporteur for Communications to recommend for dismissal those communications it deemed obviously inadmissible directly in the plenary, and decisions could be taken without sending a communication first to the State party concerned. Following these reforms, some 45 communications had been declared inadmissible without any challenge being raised by Committee members in plenary. The backlog of pending communications was now below 375 and would be reduced still further by the end of the session.

On the issue of follow-up to concluding observations, NIGEL RODLEY, Committee Expert, said that the priority concern of the Committee remained the late submission or non-submission of State party reports, as that was the key standard to measure State party compliance with their obligations under the Covenant. As of July 2006, some 30 per cent of State parties reports were overdue. Most recently, the Committee had been encouraging the Secretariat to provide technical assistance to States parties that were having trouble preparing their reports. The Committee had instituted a procedure of private unofficial hearings for States parties whose reports were seriously overdue, following which it would adopt provisional concluding observations to be sent to the State party concerned, with a view to encouraging greater observance of the States parties performance of its obligations. The procedure had been largely successful. Only two States had failed to show up for the hearing in which their report was reviewed, and had generally participated and sometimes submitted reports.

The list of issues was a continuing subject of concern for the Committee, Mr. Rodley observed. The dialogue with States parties presenting reports before the Committee was based on the list formulated by Experts in advance, and had become something of a de facto agenda for the discussions. One potential future use of the list was, that after the presentation of an initial report, the list of issues could be taken as the basis for further communications between the Committee and States parties, rather than requiring new reports every five years.

On follow-up to concluding observations, RAFAEL RIVAS POSADA, Committee Expert, said that the Working Group on Follow-up studied whether States parties were taking into account and implementing measures to address the Committee’s concluding observations. In addition, the Working Group saw its mission as being to foster dialogue and cooperation with States parties, for example by facilitating technical assistance. At the end of 2002 a Special Rapporteur had been appointed to ensure follow-up to concluding observations. State parties were asked to reply within a year of the publication of the concluding observations on measures taken to follow up on them. The Working Group then formulated areas of concern, and drafted a report for submission to the Committee. Several States were late in replying to the Committee on follow-up to concluding observations, and that deprived them of the dialogue that could lead to fruitful cooperation between the Committee and the States parties, which, ultimately, would lead to better implementation of the Covenant.

Concerning progress made with regard to follow-up to individual communications, IVAN SHEARER, Committee Expert, said the Committee had begun considering individual communications regarding violations of the Covenant under the Optional Protocol in 1979. For many years there had been no formal follow-up mechanism. In 1990 a formal procedure for follow-up of Views was instituted, and a Special Rapporteur appointed. The Special Rapporteur was mandated to inquire of States parties what measures had been taken to implement the recommendations made by the Committee in its Views, with regard to individual communications. In general, the Committee asked for the State party to make compensation to the individual so injured, and left the disposition of such compensation to the State party itself, though it could be a more specific recommendation, such as for restitution. While the Views were not technically binding, the Committee believed that they were entitled to the respect of the party that had voluntarily acceded to the instrument and agreed to be bound to it, and were thus bound in good faith to fulfil them. Information received from States parties was tabulated and posted on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and included in the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.

On the issue of treaty body reform, ABDELFATTAH AMOR, Committee Expert, said that, in the Committee's opinion, the High Commissioner’s proposal for the establishment of a single, unified standing treaty body to replace the seven treaty bodies as they were composed today faced serious political problems, but also real legal problems. It could also lead to parallel mechanisms that would definitely not constitute progress. The political and legal problems were not ones that could be settled in the short or even the medium term. To ensure better harmonization and coordination between and among the various treaty bodies the Committee considered that it was appropriate for the time being to ensure better coordination of the working methods of the treaty bodies – something that was possible without the necessity of amending or changing the treaties.

In addition, Mr. Amor suggested that the annual Inter-Committee Meeting and the meeting of treaty body chairpersons be replaced by a single coordination and harmonization body for working methods, constituted of representatives from the various treaty bodies and mandated to look into the harmonization of all working methods. That body should favour an exchange of best practices and viewpoints among the treaty bodies, on the one hand, and the Human Rights Council on the other. That could be done immediately and it would not entail any additional costs.

Discussion

The representative of Sweden affirmed that it had always been Sweden’s position to respect the Views of the Committee formulated with respect to individual communications, whether or not it agreed with the finding. On treaty body reform, the proposals put forward by Mr. Amor had many interesting and positive aspects. Nevertheless, Sweden very much supported the Human Rights Council’s approach, as well as the Inter-Committee Meetings to streamline and unify the work of the treaty bodies.

Regarding the suggestion to replace the Inter-Committee Meeting and the meeting of treaty body chairpersons with a single coordinating body, the representative of Argentina asked what the specific mandate of such a body would be. Would there be a Rapporteur that could speak on behalf of that body? Also, regarding the role of the Human Rights Council in treaty body reform, he wondered what the Committee Experts felt the relationship would be between the Universal Periodic Review and treaty bodies.

The representative of Belgium, while he appreciated the suggestions put forward by Experts to address the short-term difficulties involved in treaty reform, stressed that it was a long-term problem, and the burden on countries had to be comprehensively addressed.

Regarding follow-up to concluding observations, the representative of Norway stressed that it was important that such conclusions were based on accurate factual observations and attached great importance to giving States parties the possibility of reviewing a draft of the conclusions before they were circulated to prevent any factual mistakes. The suggestions of Mr. Rodley with regard to the possible uses of the list of issues were very interesting, in particular reducing the burden of reporting.

The representative of Australia welcomed the Committee's commitment to reform, but also wished to draw attention to the new Human Rights Council and its role in the reform process. Treaty body reform had to stay on track and keep pace with other reforms being launched throughout the system. While the Working Group on Communications’ streamlined working methods were to be commended, and the development of the list of issues as a method of reporting was a very interesting idea that should be pursued both in the Human Rights Committee and in other treaty bodies, it was hoped the Committee would remember that reform was an evolving process and that it should recognize the value of long-term reform.

The representative of Canada felt that the identification of best practices of States was a very useful idea. Canada appreciated both the views of the Committee and the High Commissioner regarding treaty body reform, and hoped that the Committee would also consider long-term reform, while it appreciated the efforts already undertaken by the Committee towards harmonizing reporting guidelines and towards the development of a unified core document. Finally, Canada thought it would be a good idea to standardize the procedure for the formulation of General Comments, and to formalize the participation of non-governmental organizations and States parties in their consideration.

The representative of the Philippines welcomed the new procedures to determine admissibility of individual complaints early on in the procedure to reduce the backlog. On reporting, the Philippines was very interested in the suggestion to explore the list of issues as the basis of reporting and wished to be involved in further developing that idea.

The representative of Ecuador said that the new procedure for determining admissibility of individual communications was an important innovation and should be developed further. Countries such as Ecuador found it very difficult to be able to respond to the questions issued in the context of reports in time. It was not just a question of reporting obligations to the UN treaty bodies, Ecuador had reporting obligations to regional mechanisms as well, and therefore felt that it was important to streamline documentation and procedures and to harmonize and unify the work of the treaty bodies. Ecuador supported the Committee’s position with regard to a standing unified treaty body, as well as its suggestions for practical reforms that could be undertaken right away.

The representative of Tunisia drew attention to the issue of delay in submitting reports. States parties often found themselves in difficulties with regard to fulfilling all of their reporting obligations to the various treaty bodies on time. The suggestions of the Special Rapporteur on follow-up to concluding observations were therefore welcome, and he wished for further information. Tunisia fully supported the Committee’s approach to treaty body reform.

The representative of the United States said of particular interest was the suggestion to use the list of issues as the basis of the reporting system. A single body to coordinate and harmonize working methods, to replace the Inter-Committee Meeting and the meeting of treaty body chairpersons, was another intriguing idea. The United States agreed with the Committee that the idea of a single unified treaty body was unworkable.

The representative of Indonesia was pleased that the Committee was considering using the list of issues as the basis for State party reports. Indonesia also agreed with Mr. Amor’s analysis of the unified standing treaty body and the political and legal obstacles that stood in its way. Of particular interest had been statements by Experts on the importance of providing technical support to States parties in drafting their reports.

The representative of Egypt echoed the concerns expressed on the establishment of a single unified treaty body. She also wished to hear from the Committee on their view of the role the Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council could play in the work of the treaty bodies. She personally felt that the treaty bodies could also play an important role in follow-up to the Universal Periodic Review.

With regard to delays in reporting, the representative of Côte d’Ivoire supported the view that the level of a country’s development and its capacity had to be taken more into consideration by treaty bodies. Côte d’Ivoire had been faced with difficulties for many years now in submitting the needed documentation to the Committee owing to the political and military situation of the country. The north of the country had been occupied by rebels and Côte d’Ivoire found it difficult to assess implementation in the rebel-held territory. There was also a problem of the causal link between civil and political rights and economic and social ones.

The representative of Thailand welcomed Mr. Amor's suggestion to set up a coordinating body to facilitate coordination, but was concerned about the composition of such a body, and what possibilities there would be for either Member States or non-Member States of the Human Rights Council to be involved in that body. Mr. Kalin’s suggestion that the concluding observations of the Committee could be used for the Universal Periodic Review system brought up the issue of what would happen in the case of non-States parties. It raised the whole question of what sources were allowed to be considered.

The representative of Mexico hoped that the Universal Periodic Review would not be duplicative but would play a complementary role in implementation of treaty obligations.

CHRISTINE CHANET, Committee Chairperson, said that the Committee had made considerable headway in its efforts towards harmonization and coordination and to streamline its own working methods. However, the use of a double chamber was not contemplated for the moment, as they had already effectively reduced their backlog. The real problem facing the Committee at the moment was that of overdue reports.


An Expert noted that, although the Committee had not adopted a formal opinion on the subject, treaty bodies could look at the results of the Universal Periodic Review when holding a dialogue with State parties, and the concluding observations of the treaty bodies would serve as an indicator for the Council as to the major issues to be taken up. The Chairperson further stressed that on no account should the Universal Periodic Review be used as a forum for appealing the decisions of treaty bodies.

An Expert observed that the various treaty bodies did not share information regarding late submissions with each other, as suggested by a State party, and that it was indeed an interesting suggestion.

The resolution establishing the Human Rights Council had emphasized two points in relation to the human rights treaty bodies, an Expert recalled: first, that it avoid duplication of work; and, secondly, that it reinforce the work of the treaty bodies. It was therefore essential that reform be carried out in that sense, with the Council and the treaty bodies each concentrating on their particular mandates. With regard to the specifics of substituting a single coordinating body for the annual Inter-Committee Meeting and the meeting of treaty body chairpersons, the Expert said that there were a number of different possibilities. The preparation for the meeting could be done in advance within the context of the separate treaty bodies, for example. He also underscored the need to formulate a common approach to reservations.

Regarding technical assistance furnished by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to States parties in preparing their reports, the OHCHR Treaty Implementation Team Leader, ALESSIO BRUNI, recalled that such assistance was supplied at the request of Governments. Such requests were growing, and were handled on a case-by-case basis. Some States, as had recently been the case in Afghanistan or Timor-Leste, had asked for general assistance in implementing human rights standards, in which the preparation of reports to treaty bodies was only one facet. In order to facilitate such assistance, they ideally wanted each country office to have the capacity to render such assistance, in particular in view of the costs entailed.

JANE CONNORS, a senior human rights officer in the Treaties and Commission Branch of OHCHR, addressing the same issue, noted that OHCHR was increasingly focusing on information in core documents as the basis for rendering such technical assistance.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CT06017E