HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE COMMEMORATES ITS 100th SESSION

The Human Rights Committee today commemorated the anniversary of its 100th session at the Palais des Nations in Geneva with a full day of discussion on the achievements of the Committee, constraints and challenges faced by the treaty body, as well as the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights around the world and future priorities of the human rights body.

In opening remarks, Yuji Iwasawa, Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee, said that many success stories had arisen following the implementation by States of remedies recommended in the Committee’s Views. Such positive outcomes included commutations of the death penalty; early releases from prison; receipt of residents permits; and compensation to the victims of human rights violations. The numerous amendments to legislation to which many of the Committee’s Views had contributed demonstrated the beneficial effects which successful implementation of the Views could have on the rights holders of an entire State.

Also in opening remarks, Bacre Ndiaye, Director of the Human Rights Council and Special Procedures Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, noted that that it could also rightly be said that the Committee’s renown was based on its case law under the Optional Protocol’s individual complaints procedure. This procedure had made it possible to give a face to the victims of human rights violations. In its Views, the Committee had clarified the extent of the application of specific rights and thus had provided authoritative interpretation of the rights enumerated in the Covenant, which had made its way into case law and human rights manuals all over the world.

Sihasak Phuangketkeow, President of the Human Rights Council, went on to say that the normative work undertaken by the Committee had fed into the deliberations of the Council. Specifically, General Comments which provided solid legal analysis on civil and political rights had helped States to shape their positions thereon. This would also be the case for the upcoming General Comment on Article 19, which he believed would add significant value and help to clarify views concerning the current controversial debate in the Council on the concept of “defamation of religions”. Independent expertise had often been provided by members of the Committee through their participation in various Human Rights Council panels, roundtables or side events which he believed were good practices that would continue to be enhanced.,

In the morning session, the assembled participants also heard keynote speeches from international experts. Robert Badinter, former President of the Constitutional Council of France and former Minister of Justice of France, addressed his remarks to the battle against the death penalty. He thought considerable progress had been made thanks to the action of States, international awareness, the development of international conventions, and the action of non-governmental organizations and all those who had militated for the abolition of the death penalty throughout the world. In terms of the development of international and regional instruments, they had played a great role in the abolition of the death penalty, including the Rome Treaty of 1998 which set up the International Criminal Court and had been ratified by 100 States.

Mohammed Bedjaoui, former President of the International Court of Justice, former President of the Algerian Constitutional Court, and former Foreign Minister of Algeria, spoke about the need to reconcile the ideas of universality and diversity. He said that situations where human rights were violated in a massive and systematic fashion must give rise to a right to intervene internationally. Cultural relativism could not be a death threat to universal human rights and cultural practices did not in any way contradict the universality of human rights. In this sense, sometimes a judge had to become an anthropologist, looking at the traditions and cultural practices of people and reconciling them with human rights.

In the interactive dialogue during the morning meeting, participants said that this was an excellent occasion on which to reflect on the work of the Committee and it would be timely if the Committee considered additional cooperation with the Human Rights Council while maintaining its independence. Today’s interactive dialogue was a rare opportunity for people to reflect on how effectiveness could be enhanced and speakers wished there could be more occasions like this to reflect on how to advance human rights. A speaker said they were particularly pleased that two of today’s presenters were part of the International Commission for the Abolition of the Death Penalty as capital punishment was a cruel and unusual punishment that violated human dignity. Capital punishment was incompatible with universal human rights and the Human Rights Committee had a very important role to play in the total abolition of the death penalty. Another speaker said that the Committee was not only a watchdog for the rights contained within the Covenant, it was also the interpreter and chief promoter of those rights. As such, the speaker suggested that the Committee note the impact it had on national legislation and case law.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were Japan, Algeria, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, the United States, Norway, France, Philippines, the United Kingdom, the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and Committee members of the Human Rights Committee.

In the afternoon, participants heard from several additional keynote speakers. Antonio Cançado Trinidade, Judge of the International Court of Justice and former President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, said that through its concluding observations the Committee had contributed to precision of the scope of the rights protected under the Covenant as well as to the corresponding obligations on States parties. The Committee had also provided a continuous monitoring of the situation of human rights in States parties around the world. By means of its General Comments, of which there were 33 to date, the Committee provided invaluable guidance to its interpretations of the relevant provisions of the Covenant and these comments had covered a wide range of topics such as the right to a fair trial.

Eibe Reidel, Professor of the Graduate Institute of International Studies and International Development and Member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said that the Committee should also be praised for monitoring human rights violations through its reporting mechanism and in its individual communications procedure. The Human Rights Committee early on had adopted a broad interpretation of the right to life. In recent years, the Committee had laudably raised broader questions surrounding the right to life such as infant mortality rates, life expectancy, abortions and the right to safe and potable water, all of which the Committee deemed to stem from the right to life.

Bertrand Ramcharan, former Acting and Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, urged the Committee to consider how its core jurisprudence could be made available to judges worldwide in local languages. It would also be important for efforts to develop human rights education to be influenced by their work. It could be helpful for the Committee to provide a simple guide for use by teachers on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its place in the universal culture of human rights. At the end of the day, the entrenchment of a universal culture of human rights worldwide remained one of the most pressing challenges of the human rights movement.

During the interactive dialogue in the afternoon meeting speakers noted that it was important to recognize the key role of non-governmental organizations in the work of the Committee, and for the Committee to organize itself in such a way as to make the best use of the material and information provided both by States and civil society. Another speaker pointed out that people living in States where their governments had not signed or ratified the Covenant did not enjoy the rights guaranteed therein, or they lived in States that had ratified the Covenant, but with many limiting reservations. The nature and scope of such reservations was cause for concern. Another speaker said that the Committee’s concluding observations allowed people to see how States were implementing their obligations and these concluding observations had become increasingly precise and concrete, however they could still be improved. The recommendations should be placed in a larger context of the other treaty bodies and the impact would be strengthened if the Committees were to establish cross referencing related to the concluding observations.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were members of the Human Rights Committee, a representative of the International Labour Organization and representatives of non-governmental organizations, including the Centre for Civil and Political Rights, Amnesty International, the International Federation of Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, Conscience and Peace Tax International, and the International Society for Human Rights.

The next session of the Human Rights Committee will be held from 7 to 25 March 2011 when it will consider reports from Serbia, Mongolia, Slovakia, Togo and one country in the absence of a report.

Opening Statements

YUJI IWASAWA, Committee Chairperson, began the day’s events by saying that of all the treaty bodies, the Human Rights Committee had the most significant experience in examining individual complaints. As a quasi-judicial procedure, the Committee had described its Views as exhibiting “some important characteristics of a judicial procedure.” To date it had registered around 2,000 complaints and had examined over 700 cases on the merits. Over the years, the Committee had developed a substantial body of jurisprudence representing significant interpretations of Covenant rights. For example, the Committee had interpreted Article 26 which provided that “all persons are equal before the law”, as an independent right, extending to rights not otherwise guaranteed by the Covenant.

Mr. Iwasawa went on to say that many success stories had arisen following the implementation by States of remedies recommended in the Committee’s Views. Such positive outcomes included: commutations of the death penalty; early releases from prison; receipt of residents permits; and compensation to the victims of human rights violations. The numerous amendments to legislation to which many of the Committee’s Views had contributed demonstrated the beneficial effects which successful implementation of the Views could have on the rights holders of an entire State. Another important achievement of the Committee related to its adoption of General Comments, or interpretive guidance on the rights set out in the Covenant. It was a unique device the Committee developed based on Article 40 of the Covenant. General Comment No. 32 on Article 14 of the Covenant on the right to a fair hearing was a recent example of a General Comment in which the Committee set out its understanding of this provision. To date, the Committee had adopted 33 such comments and Mr. Iwasawa was happy to announce that at its 100thsession the Committee completed its first reading of its 34th General Comment on Article 19 of the Covenant, relating to freedom of expression. No doubt this last comment, once adopted, like others would contribute to a more complete understanding of the rights protected therein.

The main challenge facing the Committee, according to Mr. Iwasawa, was how to strengthen and harmonize the working methods of the treaty bodies. To this end, the Committee had adopted new reporting guidelines as well as a new procedure for the examination of States parties’ reports, involving the adoption of lists of issues prior to reporting. These efforts should reduce the burden on States parties as well as the Committee and should result in more targeted reports to the benefit of all. In addition, the Committee had contributed with the other treaty bodies to a number of initiatives on strengthening the system which took place in Dublin and Poznan.

In conclusion, Mr. Iwasawa said the Human Rights Committee had been a forerunner of the human rights treaty bodies. As the Chairperson of the Committee, he was proud of it and expressed their determination to continue to carry out their functions to the best of their abilities.

BACRE NDIAYE, Director of the Human Rights Council and Special Procedures Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in welcoming the assembled group, said that when examining the periodic reports of the 166 States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Committee time and again made concrete recommendations which had led States to change their legislation, policy or practice. Since the establishment of its follow-up procedure, implementation of these recommendations was being carefully scrutinized by the Committee, making them even more effective.

Mr. Ndiaye noted that it could also rightly be said that the Committee’s renown was based on its case law under the Optional Protocol’s individual complaints procedure. This procedure had made it possible to give a face to the victims of human rights violations. In its Views, the Committee had clarified the extent of the application of specific rights and thus had provided authoritative interpretation of the rights enumerated in the Covenant, which had made its way into case law and human rights manuals all over the world. Even more concretely, thanks to the Committee’s Views, sentences had been commuted; and persons had been released from imprisonment, reinstated in employment, rehabilitated and received compensation. It was therefore an honour for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to service this august body.

SIHASAK PHUANGKETKEOW, President of the Human Rights Council, said the work of the Committee had resonated in the Human Rights Council chamber during the sessions of the Universal Periodic Review. The so-called “UN Compilations”, in which many treaty bodies’ work and outputs featured prominently, were referred to by many State delegations when formulating recommendations to the State under review. The Universal Periodic Review therefore provided an effective way to raise awareness about the Committee’s work, disseminate it to a larger audience and give new impetus to the Committee’s recommendations. Furthermore, synergies seemed to have emerged ahead or as a consequence of the Universal Periodic Review, with several States ratifying more human rights treaties or submitting reports to treaty bodies.

Mr. Phuangketkeow went on to say that the normative work undertaken by the Committee had fed into the deliberations of the Council. Specifically, General Comments which provided solid legal analysis on civil and political rights had helped States to shape their positions thereon. This would also be the case for the upcoming General Comment on Article 19, which he believed would add significant value and help to clarify views concerning the current controversial debate in the Council on the concept of “defamation of religions”. Independent expertise had often been provided by members of the Committee through their participation in various Human Rights Council panels, roundtables or side events which he believed were good practices that would continue to be enhanced.

Mr. Phuangketkeow concluded by saying that the synergy between the Council and all UN human rights mechanisms should continue to be enhanced. This would be one of the issues the Council would discuss under the ongoing review of the work and functioning this year. The goal was to assess what they had achieved and where improvements could be made in enhancing the effectiveness of the Human Rights Council in the protection and promotion of human rights for all.

Keynote Speakers

ROBERT BADINTER, Former President of the Constitutional Council of France and Former Minister of Justice of France, addressed his remarks to the battle against the death penalty. He thought considerable progress had been made and wanted to outline the reasons he felt a universal abolition of the death penalty was needed. In 1981 when France abolished the death penalty it was the 35th country in the world to do so; now in the United Nations, of the 192 Member States, 138 had abolished it de jure or de facto, meaning that abolition was now definitely the majority position in the world.

To what could this change be attributed? Mr. Badinter said the action of States, international awareness and the development of international conventions, and the action of non-governmental organizations and all those who had militated for the abolition of the death penalty throughout the world were to thank for this change in policy.

In terms of the development of international and regional instruments, they had played a great role in the abolition of the death penalty, including the Rome Treaty of 1998 which set up the International Criminal Court and had been ratified by 100 States. This instrument had set up an international permanent jurisdiction whose task was to prosecute and punish those responsible for the worst crimes. This jurisdiction refused to use the death penalty and there was nothing more symbolic in modern terms than mankind’s refusal to deliver even executioners to the death penalty.

Moving on to ways in which the fight could be continued, Mr. Badinter said moratoriums should be supported as well as those people fighting for an abolition of the death penalty. China and the United States were of particular concern as they still used the death penalty. To be clear about this, not all of the United States used the death penalty, only certain states within the union. There were 13 states which had abolished the death penalty and another three had just done so. The United States Supreme Court had adopted a number of decisions involving the death penalty and the abolitionist movement was making headway and moratoriums were continuing to flourish in some states. Their friends in the United States should constantly be reminded that soft power included this necessary accession to the movement wherein the United States now was the only Western democracy which still practiced the death penalty.

There was also the problem of Islamic fundamentalist States. The abolition movement was making progress, but an area of resistance to this movement was in the near and Middle East and when one looked at statistics one could see that unfortunately, in that part of the world, there were 634 executions that took place in countries in that region. In the last few years, 388 people were executed in Iran, including 5 minors in contravention of international law and a large number of women, particularly in cases of stoning, which was striking. There were some people who supported the death penalty on the basis of religion and they said denying this penalty would be a denial of religious laws. But one knows that interpretation of the Shari’a was not necessarily that way, just as the Old Testament was not always abolitionist. The Shari’a allowed the death penalty, but did not make it mandatory. Mr. Badinter acknowledged that this religious debate could be a difficult one for the lay person to have.

In closing, Mr. Badinter said that efforts should be redoubled to accelerate the universal abolition of the death penalty.

MOHAMMED BEDJAOUI, Former President of the International Court of Justice, Former President of the Algerian Constitutional Court, and Former Foreign Minister of Algeria, spoke about the need to reconcile the ideas of universality and diversity with Africa in mind. In reality it was not always easy to affirm the right to universality in the context of diverse cultural practices. What was a given was the dignity of man and mankind, which was the major constant that had to be respected beyond any cultural differences and diversity.

The oneness of the human species led to the belief that one could not distinguish between people because they were all cut from the same cloth. Theologians were the true founders of universality, if one looked at their calls for humanism one would see their calls for fundamental human rights. These rights did not flow from local cultures, but rather they were rights human beings enjoyed as living beings and these rights pre-existed laws and enjoyed supremacy over all laws.

The small scale coffee grower in Tanzania, the woman in Mali seeking water for her crops, the Rwandan refugee, these people certainly did not have the same dreams of human rights as the metal worker in Russia, the wheat trader in Winnipeg, the scientist in Berkeley or the unemployed person in France. It could be said that every place had worked out its own priorities that were a product of their unique situation, needs and immediate issues. Situations where human rights were violated in massive and systematic fashion must give rise to a right to intervene internationally. It was in this direction that this Committee could approach the situation in Africa. Cultural relativism could not be a death threat to universal human rights. Africa was not the only continent that was a concern; Asia and South America were also of concern. Cultural practices did not in any way contradict the universality of human rights. In this sense, sometimes a judge had to become an anthropologist, looking at the traditions and cultural practices of people and reconciling them with human rights.

Mr. Bedjaoui said it was important to ask why this region of the world seemed to be allergic to human rights. The development of Africa had been different from other regions as it had been decimated by colonialism and the idea of human rights imported with this colonialism was a skewed one. The region suffered from underdevelopment and it was often governed by a legal order that was bits and pieces where colonial law, traditional law and bits of modern law were cobbled together. Another issue was that in Africa an individual was nothing without his or her social group and this also had an impact on human rights. The culture of modern democracy was still new in Africa and people there could only rarely taste the sweetness of participation and opposition that came with democracy.

When looking at these realities which were disabling, an impartial observer could not suddenly expect that in this Africa a harmonious space illuminated by human rights would suddenly emerge. Africa was in fact designing its own path to human rights. There was great activity taking place in the country surrounding democracy in the forms of fora, universities, non-governmental organizations and foundations and this would bear fruit. Enough time must be given to Africa to view things from a distance and provide the experience necessary. These rights in Europe and elsewhere were the result of a lengthy time frame, they did not happen overnight. It was the result of time that had shaped behaviours and created a culture, a mindset, a way of thinking. New constructions and reconstructions would take shape around human rights in Africa, which would include innovation from the continent as well as borrowing from elsewhere. Africans themselves had to be the shapers of their destiny to finally forge their own conception of human rights, which would be a powerful tool in the liberation from neo-colonialism and local authoritarianism. An inter-generational approach also had to be taken with the inclusion of young people. Democracy could not wait, nor could human rights.

Interactive Dialogue

In the ensuing interactive dialogue during the morning meeting, participants said that this was an excellent occasion on which to reflect on the work of the Committee and it would be timely if the Committee considered additional cooperation with the Human Rights Council while maintaining its independence from the Committee. Today’s interactive dialogue was a rare opportunity for people to reflect on how effectiveness could be enhanced and speakers wished there could be more occasions like this to reflect on how to advance human rights. A speaker said they were particularly pleased that two of today’s presenters were part of the International Commission for the Abolition of the Death Penalty as capital punishment was a cruel and unusual punishment that violated human dignity. Capital punishment was incompatible with universal human rights. The Human Rights Committee had a very important role to play in the total abolition of the death penalty.

Another speaker said that the Committee was not only a watchdog for the rights contained within the Covenant, it was also the interpreter and chief promoter of those rights. As such, the speaker suggested that the Committee note the impact it had on national legislation and case law. Improvements to the Committee’s visibility could also be made which would increase its legitimacy and the recognition of its work by a broader audience. Better dissemination of the Committee’s documents as well as documents written in less technical language would also help in broadening the visibility of the Committee. Another speaker suggested webcasts of the treaty body meetings could enhance the visibility of the Committee as well.

A representatives of national human rights institutions was also on hand for the observance of the milestone meeting and noted the work done by the Human Rights Committee to facilitate the work and participation of national human rights institutions in the protection and promotion of civil and political rights, and it was hoped that cooperation between these organizations and the Committee would grow and they could continue to assist in the treaty body monitoring process.

A representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees noted that the work of the Committee helped UNHCR in its work with refugees, asylum seekers, and people in need of international protection. The issues and recommendations that the Committee addressed helped to strengthen the rights of people of concern to UNHCR. UNHCR’s cooperation with the Committee had intensified over the years and the Committee’s case law and concluding observations were used as an advocacy tool in UNHCR field offices and were included in a compilation of reports. UNHCR would continue its engagement with the broader themes of combating racism, xenophobia, and hate crimes in the framework of the Human Rights Committee.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were Japan, Algeria, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, the United States, Norway, France, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and Committee members of the Human Rights Committee.

Keynote Speakers

ANTONIO CANCADO TRINIDADE, Judge of the International Court of Justice and Former President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, said that this was a significant day for human rights. For more than three decades, the Human Rights Committee had been discharging its duties and he was honoured to take part in today’s commemoration of the 100th session of the Committee. Mr. Trinidade had the opportunity to be part of the processing of the first batch of individual communications at the end of 1976 and in early 1977. The Committee had given pioneering contributions on various issues including discrimination and arbitrariness of public authorities.

In so far as the reporting system was concerned, through its concluding observations the Committee had contributed to precision of the scope of the rights protected under the Covenant as well as to the corresponding obligations on States parties. The Committee had also provided a continuous monitoring of the situation of human rights in States parties around the world.

By means of its General Comments, of which there were 33 to date, the Committee provided invaluable guidance to its interpretations of the relevant provisions of the Covenant and these comments had covered a wide range of topics such as the right to a fair trial. In all his years on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Mr. Trinidade said as a jurist he always kept in mind the keen awareness on the part of the Human Rights Committee of the need for a speedy trial when accessing justice. Another General Comment addressed the obligations of States parties to secure the rights of all citizens in its jurisdiction or its territory as well as the supremacy of the Covenant over domestic law.

Mr. Trinidade said that in the exercise of its functions, the Human Rights Committee had identified the proper time and space dimensions in all their legal consequences. An example of the time dimension was provided by the Committee’s endorsement of continuing situations and persistent effects in its handling of communications and the notion of potential victims. As to the latter, the space dimension, an example of this was the Committee’s endorsement of extraterritorial application of human rights.

In conclusion, Mr. Trinidade said that the Committee’s impact could be seen in courts around the world, both nationally and regionally, in which courts referred to the Views and the General Comments of the Committee. The Committee’s contribution to the evolution of international law had been remarkable and Mr. Trinidade extended his congratulations and appreciation to the Committee members for their work and wished them the best in their next 100 sessions.

EIBE REIDEL, Professor of the Graduate Institute of International Studies and International Development and Member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said that everyone on all treaty bodies could be proud of the truly remarkable achievements of the Human Rights Committee over the last decades. The precision of the concluding observations and General Comments had inspired the work of other treaty bodies.

Mr. Reidel went on to say that the Human Rights Committee had played a leading role in Inter-Committee Meetings and their General Comments had helped to elaborate the rights enshrined in all treaty bodies, not just their own. The last decades had also seen the development and gradual expansion of what could be called Committee jurisprudence.

The Committee should also be praised for monitoring human rights violations through its reporting mechanism and in its individual communications procedure. The Vienna Declaration stated that human rights were universal and while all UN bodies repeatedly cited the first sentence of the declaration, many States forgot the second line of the declaration. Without those rights mentioned in that second line civil and political rights would lack the underpinnings necessary to enforce them. It was quite evident that without the effective guarantee of the right to life, almost all other rights would be meaningless.

The Human Rights Committee early on had adopted a broad interpretation of the right to life. In recent years, the Committee had laudably raised broader questions surrounding the right to life such as infant mortality rates, life expectancy, abortions and the right to safe and potable water, all of which the Committee deemed to stem from the right to life. Many of these rights were achievable by all States parties, even those with limited resources.

Mr. Reidel concluded by saying that the Committee was to be congratulated for its exemplary practice and he hoped its cooperation with sister Committees would continue to thrive.

BERTRAND RAMCHARAN, Former Acting and Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that he remembered the vision and excitement that accompanied the development of this Committee and its Covenant in the 1970s at the height of the Cold War. When the Covenants were adopted the President of the General Assembly said that if the United Nations was to have any ideology, it had to be the ideology of human rights. Mr. Ramcharan said that it was this Committee, more than any other human rights body in the United Nations that had given content to the contemporary concept of human rights protection in international law.

Mr. Ramcharan said that the Committee had made landmark contributions to the preventive dimensions of protection. In its case law, the Committee’s concluding observations on country reports and its General Comments had called on States parties to act expeditiously for the curtailment of human rights violations the moment they came to the knowledge of the government and to bring those violations to a speedy end. The Committee had also developed the law on remedial and compensatory protection. The Committee’s jurisprudence under the Optional Protocol was one of the richest on remedies and compensation. The Committee had also established the legal principle of contemporaneity in human rights protection, namely that the law should be interpreted and applied in the light of contemporary circumstances. In this way, the Committee had made the law of human rights protection a living law and contributed to the progressive development of the international law of human rights.

Mr. Ramcharan continued by saying that because the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was such a key part of the International Bill of Human Rights it was incumbent upon the Committee to play a leadership role in international protection in all six dimensions of the protection concept: public order, structural, preventive, mitigatory and curative remedial and compensatory, and contemporaneity. It would be important to reflect on how they could perform this leadership role in a rapidly changing world. The importance of their work was of such a high order of magnitude that they would need to consider how their activities could become better known worldwide so that they could have a practical impact on the national protection of human rights.

In closing, Mr. Ramcharan urged the Committee to consider how its core jurisprudence could be made available to judges worldwide in local languages. Institutions such as the International Bar Association and the International Commission of Jurists could help in this endeavour. It would also be important for efforts to develop human rights education to be influenced by their work. It could be helpful for the Committee to provide a simple guide for use by teachers on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its place in the universal culture of human rights. At the end of the day, the entrenchment of a universal culture of human rights worldwide remained one of the most pressing challenges of the human rights movement.

Interactive Dialogue

In the interactive dialogue that followed, Committee members of the Human Rights Committee said that the Committee should be reminded by these proceedings that they should go beyond the legal aspects of their work to address the human condition. The Committee should also work on increasing visibility and transparency as well as its cooperation with non-governmental organizations. The Committee also needed a focal point for the States, because there were some States which were not in a position to get all the information they needed. One Committee member asked what could be done to improve the working methods of the Committee as well as how they could better help States, many of which felt overwhelmed by the reporting requirements of all the treaty body mechanisms.

Another Committee member raised the issue of the Universal Periodic Review process and asked how to better streamline that process with the work of the Human Rights Committee. They also pointed out that today should be seen as an opportunity to re-launch a ratification drive for the second Optional Protocol and also to encourage more States to recognize the individual communications procedure. In terms of other things that States could do to strengthen the treaty body system, they could make their citizens more aware of the Covenant and the treaty body system and they also needed to follow the reporting procedure and respect the periodicity requirements of the reports.

Another speaker said it was important to recognize the key role of non-governmental organizations in the work of the Committee, and it was important for the Committee to organize itself in such a way to make the best use of the material and information provided both by States and civil society.

A representative of the International Labour Organization said that labour rights were a component of international law on human rights and were complementary with civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights. Nowhere was this interdependence more integral than in the right to freedom of association which was complimented by rights to collective bargaining. Decent work for a decent wage in decent conditions complimented civil and political rights. The International Labour Organization supervisory mechanism often provided reports and information to the treaty bodies and International Labour Organization experts often cited treaty body concluding observations and General Comments in their work. There was a growing space and opportunity for enhanced exchange and cooperation between the International Labour Organization and this Committee.

A representative of the Centre for Civil and Political Rights said the Committee’s concluding observations allowed people to see how States were implementing their obligations and these concluding observations had become increasingly precise and concrete, however they could still be improved. The recommendations should be placed in a larger context of the other treaty bodies and the impact would be strengthened if the Committees were to establish cross referencing related to the concluding observations. In terms of the follow-up to the concluding observations, ideally it would be better if the areas chosen for follow-up were concrete and measurable.

A representative of Amnesty International said that this session was an important milestone in the efforts aimed at increasing the protection and promotion of universally recognized human rights around the world. Despite the many achievements, challenges remained for States to fulfil their obligations under the Covenant, for the Committee to advance its working methods and for civil society. People living in States where their governments had not signed or ratified the Covenant did not enjoy these rights, or they lived in States that had ratified the Covenant, but with many limiting reservations. The nature and scope of such reservations was cause for concern. With regards to reporting, it was disappointing to note that many States did not submit their reports on time and Amnesty International welcomed the Committee’s consideration of countries in the absence of a report and thought this process would benefit from greater transparency and more publicity.

A representative of the International Federation for Human Rights raised questions on follow-up to concluding observations, increasing reprisals against human rights defenders who cooperated with the Committee, and the role of civil society. The Special Rapporteur for follow-up could make more precise and targeted recommendations and that would help non-governmental organizations in their work and the Special Rapporteur could also hold meetings with civil society groups once or twice per year. On reprisals, it was urgent that the rights of human rights defenders were defended more systematically and this could be included in their reports.

A representative of Human Rights Watch suggested four areas to strengthen the Committee’s work. The Committee should ensure that Governments continued to nominate people of the highest quality to the Committee; the Committee should be supplied with adequate resources to meet its mandate; the Committee should prioritize public awareness of the Committee’s role and ensure the ease of use and accessibly of its website and that documents were written in an accessible style; and implementation of the recommendations should be a priority for the entire United Nations.

A representative of Conscience and Peace tax International said that it was different from other civil society groups in that it was a single issue non-governmental organization focused on conscientious objection to military service. With regard to this issue, General Comment 22 was crucial in that it said that a right to conscientious objection could be derived from Article 18.

A representative of the International Society for Human Rights welcomed help offered to States since there was an implementation gap in countries that did not have the resources to implement the Committee’s recommendations. The speaker also applauded the focus on the right to life, human dignity and the abolition on the death penalty.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were members of the Human Rights Committee, a representative of the International Labour Organization and representatives of non-governmental organizations, including the Centre for Civil and Political Rights, Amnesty International, the International Federation of Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, Conscience and Peace Tax International, and the International Society for Human Rights.

ANTONIO CANCADO TRINIDADE, Judge of the International Court of Justice and Former President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, referred to an initiative of the International Criminal Court on reparations in collective cases and they looked at the case law from the last decade which included the work of the treaty bodies. Unlike his predecessors, he saw no danger in the proliferation of organs, rather he saw this as a boon to the protection and promotion of human rights. This did not represent the danger of the fragmentation of international law.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

YUJI IWASAWA, Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee, on behalf of the Committee thanked all the participants who joined them to celebrate the 100th session of the Committee and their contributions to the discussions. It was a day of rich and interesting thoughts and ideas and the Committee would continue to work on the implementation of the Covenant. This was Mr. Iwasawa’s last meeting as Committee Chairperson and he thanked his colleagues for their support. Some of the achievements the Committee had accomplished in the last few years included a first reading of General Comment 34, it took an important decision on reporting procedures, and it had adopted revised reporting guidelines. Mr. Iwasawa thanked the secretariat and his colleagues again for a productive and satisfying tenure as Chairperson.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CT10/026E