HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE DISCUSSES METHODS OF WORK

The Human Rights Committee this afternoon considered its methods of work, discussing first reservations to treaties, then ideas on working methods proposed by a Committee Expert, in particular with regard to communications and overdue reports, the Inter-Committee Meeting, and the procedure around the presentation of reports and dialogue with States parties.

On reservations to treaties, Yuji Iwasawa, the Committee’s Chairperson, said that following the July session, he had sent a letter to the International Law Commission on the deliberations. Two issues had arisen: guidelines adopted in 2009, and guidelines adopted in 2010, particularly after the July session. With regard to the first, the Committee had had concerns, which had been expressed in the letter to the Commission. The Commission adopted the entire guidelines provisionally this year, and would review them next year before adopting them finally, and would take the Committee's concerns in this revision. With regard to the guidelines adopted in July 2010, there had been some discussion in the last session, but not in detail. In his letter, he had also expressed some views on the issues up for discussion in the International Law Commission, and had quoted from the recommendation of the Working Group on reservations, which were endorsed by the Inter-Committee Meeting of Chairpersons, in particular that where a reservation was null and void, the consequences were that the State could not rely on such a reservation, and would remain a party to the text without reservation, unless incontrovertible evidence to the contrary was definitively established. A guideline along these lines had been suggested. The International Law Commission had extensive discussions on this issue.

With regard to the guidelines adopted in July, Experts said, among other things, that Commentary 24 would leave it up to the competence of the Committee to decide whenever a reservation was counter to the content and scope of the Covenant. The Committee could not accept the approach that there was always an objection to a reservation - even if it did not, it should act, finding a reservation contrary to the purpose of the Convention. Issues of concern remained of concern, an Expert said. It would be true for all treaties that an invalid reservation would be null and void and the State party would remain a party to the text as it stood. The burden was now shifted to the State to say that it did not consider itself a party to the Treaty without benefit of that reservation, and, an Expert said, that was not likely to happen easily. Why was there a need of a collective position on a non-valid reservation, an Expert asked. States might be rather indifferent to this matter - once a reservation appeared that was a bit twisted, then it could be a bit difficult for the Committee.

The Committee then moved to the item on the ideas proposed by Expert Krister Thelin on working methods, who, presenting the issue, said the observations he made were not original, nor were the solutions new, but he had been encouraged by the work done on the List of Issues of States Prior to Reporting. The problem with this was that it would not come into effect for another three years, until 2013, and the situation was an embarrassment to all, not just to States late in reporting, but also to the Committee. The Committee should take a more robust approach, and maybe shift its priorities to assisting those who were in serious delay. He was well aware that the Committee was not in a position to bring any strong action to bear on reopening the Covenant, but it had a duty to make note of the fact that there was no provision in the Covenant for such contradictive situations where a State party that was very late in producing a report yet could influence the composition of the Committee. He also suggested that periods between reporting could be extended to six years or more. The Committee also needed to deal with its serious backlog in communications. The Committee should remember that it was not the master - it was subject to resources and priorities determined by somebody else, but it should express itself loud and clear that it was important to allow it to do its job with regard to communications, which, Mr. Thelin said, he believed to have a greater impact on the situation of the individual than the rest of the work of the Committee.

Discussing this issue, Experts said the Committee was transitioning into a brand-new procedure - the Super-Maximum List of Issues. It would be helpful to know how many years behind was the Committee. Something should be done on the supply side to help States submit reports, in particular initial reports - it appeared often to be an issue not of lack of goodwill, but of motivation and capacity. Technical cooperation could help States to submit their reports, and the High Commissioner should be vigorous in identifying which States to approach in order to offer this. A suggestion was made to deal with a "chronic delay State" per session, as they were just being dealt with generally. Making contact with States which had not submitted their reports was the responsibility of the Chair of the Committee, an Expert suggested, but there should at least be a focal point for States in order to make contact and explain to the State what the Committee intended to do. The Committee had to take into account why so many States were reluctant or indifferent to submit reports, another said, saying many States were actually terrified of meeting the Committee and meeting their obligations, as they were frightened by the Committee asking too much of them. The Committee needed to change this perspective. A special plenary could be an option to debate the issue of overdue reports. There was a problem of ownership of what the Committee did, and, an Expert said, it should stress to the High Commissioner the importance to allow an open debate on the procedures and character of the Committee. Another Expert suggested that the Committee go out in the field and show that it was making the work of the Committee relevant to the people.

The Committee also discussed the Inter-Committee Meeting, and the agenda of the next one in June 2011. The last meeting had suggested that each treaty body reduce the length of its concluding recommendations, in order to improve their impact, the Chairperson said. There was also a problem with translations of reports reaching Committee members in time, and the Meeting had suggested that reports should be written clearly and States parties should respect the page limit. The Inter-Committee Meeting had come up with a standard paragraph, which a number of other treaty bodies had begun to insert, and the Committee should consider whether to do so also. One Expert said that he believed that the Committee's chief mandate had to do with issues of compliance with the Covenant, and not procedural methods that would expedite its work or that of the Secretariat. Another Expert pointed out that it was incoherent to apply the same standards to this Committee as to other Committees, as they were not the same in nature. Several Experts also expressed discomfort at the idea of page limits. From the discussions, the Chairperson concluded that a majority of Experts were against the insertion of the paragraph in the concluding observations.

The Chair said several States had been considered during the session. Because of resource constraints, there was a burden of receiving written replies in only one working language, which was not always the same. If written responses to the List of Issues were received in advance, even in a language in which many members did not work very well, then this made the work of the Committee more effective and more rapid. He suggested that the Committee adopt this method of work, as it would save a lot of time during the dialogue with the State party. In response to this, an Expert said that in general, this was a good idea, but a problem could arise in the case of a poorly-equipped delegation which could not provide technically-competent answers to questions. Another Expert raised the issue that if texts were only available in one language, this was not necessarily fair on all Experts, and if they accepted this, then the system might take advantage of this. This issue would be discussed further.

The Committee also held a minute of silence to honour an ex-Member of the Committee, Professor Louis Henkin, who had died recently at the age of 92, after, as a Committee member said, "the kind of life many of us would aspire to". A number of Committee Experts also spoke about Professor Henkin, commending his life and work and his commitment to the cause of human rights, his contribution to the development of Constitutional Law, and his work during the Second World War.

The next meeting of the Committee will be on Monday, 18 October, when it will consider its draft general comment on article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CT10/020E