HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE HEARS REPORTS ON FOLLOW-UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS AND TO VIEWS

This morning the Human Rights Committee heard presentations of progress reports on the status of follow-up to the Committee's concluding observations and on follow-up to Views. Following the presentations on action taken by States parties to implement concluding observations and Committee Views (opinions on individual complaints), the Committee adopted the reports, as orally amended during today's discussions.

Abdelfattah Amor, Committee Member and the Special Rapporteur on Follow-Up to Concluding Observations, presenting the progress report on that subject, drew the Committee's attention to the difficulties concerning translations of States parties' reports and other limitations pertaining to financial and human resources which could create a backlog in the follow-up procedure.

Mr. Amor said that during this session he met with representatives from Algeria, Honduras, Libya and the Central African Republic. He found this procedure of meetings and dialogues was important and allowed the Committee to sensitize States, make sure they understood their responsibilities, and to provide any information and assistance that the States might need. This procedure should be used more often and although results might not be immediate, it would bear fruit in the future.

Before moving on to the country by country review, a Committee Member wondered whether there was some means of acknowledging States that had failed to respond to requests for information over a number of years so that these cases did not go unreported or overlooked. Perhaps this information could be included in a yearly report. Another Committee Expert asked whether the Committee had done follow-up missions and if the budget could be reoriented to allow for such visits to countries. A member of the Committee secretariat noted that the requests for resources for follow-up missions by treaty bodies had been systematically rejected because such missions were not part of the treaties.

Regarding the country by country review, Mr. Amor said that the Central African Republic was invited to reply to the concluding observations in its next report, and added that he met with a representative of the State, which was useful.

Turning to Kosovo, the Special Rapporteur said that the Committee was awaiting a response to a letter that was sent to the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and no action was recommended at this time. It was suggested that this situation should be left open until the next session to take into account any response that may be received.

In connection with Honduras, Mr. Amor said that he had a meeting with the ambassador in Geneva and a number of his colleagues. Subsequently a letter reached the secretariat that contained fresh information, but this information did not represent a full and satisfactory response to the Committee's request. Mr. Amor noted that the next periodic report of Honduras was due on 31 October 2010 so it would be logical to request the State party to provide information concerning all the concluding observations in its next report.

On the question of the Ukraine, Mr. Amor said a letter had been sent to the State party and they were awaiting a reply to that communication. A Committee Expert noted that Ukraine's next periodic report was due in March 2011, therefore the follow-up procedure should be in full swing and it should be able to address these issues in its next report. The Chairperson noted that when a State indicated that it had no intention of implementing the Committee's recommendations then there was no basis for further dialogue and thus the issue was considered closed. The Committee Expert agreed and said when items were no longer under consideration due to a State's decision not to implement recommendations this should be made clear in the report so as to avoid ambiguity.

Mr. Amor said he met with a representative of Libya and their next periodic report was due 31 October 2010 and if anything arrived before then it would be taken into account; otherwise they would expect to see further information in the periodic report that was due at the end of the month.

Regarding Algeria, the State party wanted to have meetings during the last session which were organized and the State party had insisted on making clear, with quite some vigour, the need for and the usefulness of cooperation with the Committee. The next report was due within a year, on 21 November 2011, but the Special Rapporteur expected a positive response before then. Mr. Amor reminded the Committee that it had been decided that the procedure with Algeria would stop a year early, but he had made it clear to the State that it was advantageous to provide replies before the next periodic report was due.

It was noted that in March 2010 Tunisia sent a report with additional information that had been requested, and on the basis of this report the Committee decided to send a new communication acknowledging the cooperation of the State party and requesting at the same time that it provide additional information on various subjects. This request was sent on 4 October 2010. The next periodic report of Tunisia was due 31 March 2012.

Regarding the Netherlands, Mr. Amor said that the Committee had expected to receive information from the country on 28 July 2010, but he had received an email from a representative of the State party stating that due to changes in the government the State party was having trouble getting the replies to the Committee on time.

Mr. Amor underlined that the Russian Federation had sent replies before the expiration of the period and these would be translated so that the Committee could discuss them soon. Mr. Amor then proposed that previous concluding observations be included in the list of issues sent to a country.

There were no updates regarding Barbados, Chile, Madagascar, Czech Republic, Sudan, Zambia, and Georgia. And there were no recommendations or comments on the following countries: Costa Rica, Botswana, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Panama, France, San Marino, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ireland, Nicaragua, Monaco, Denmark, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Rwanda, Australia, Azerbaijan, Chad and Tanzania.

The Committee then adopted all the proposed recommendations on follow-up, as just mentioned.

Committee Chairperson, Yuji Iwasawa, speaking on behalf of Ruth Wedgwood, Committee Member and Special Rapporteur for Follow-Up to Views, presented the report on follow-up to individual communications.

Mr. Iwasawa noted that Algeria had not responded to a case about enforced disappearance and the author of the complaint said that the State party had taken no measures to implement the Committee's decision, and in general had failed to follow-up on any decisions taken by the Committee. A meeting was scheduled with a representative of Algeria for the 94th session that was held in October 2008, but it did not take place and the Committee decided a further attempt to establish a meeting should be made. The dialogue was considered ongoing.

Turning to Belarus and a case of detention, Mr. Iwasawa said the State party contested the views of the Committee, and the author of the complaint said that Belarus had taken no steps to implement the decision of the Committee. The Committee considered the dialogue ongoing.

Cameroon had not responded to a complaint regarding a case of arbitrary detention and the author of the complaint said that no action to implement the Committee's decision had been taken. Mr. Iwasawa said considering that Cameroon had failed to follow-up in four out of six cases, the Special Rapporteur proposed that the Committee might want to consider requesting a meeting with the State party. The dialogue was considered ongoing.


In a case of alleged unfair trial in Croatia, the State party had sent a communication to the Committee noting that it had allocated an apartment in Zagreb to the complaint's author which corresponded fully to the author's pre-war housing, thus restoring de facto his pre-war housing situation. The author of the complaint said that this was not satisfactory and wanted the property in question returned to him as well financial compensation. The Special Rapporteur recommended that this case be closed.

Mr. Iwasawa then turned to a case in Nepal regarding enforced disappearance. In responding to the complaint, the State party said it would provide 200,000 rupees to the complaint's author for immediate relief and an investigation would be undertaken by the Independent Commission on Disappearances. The author said the 200,000 rupees did not represent adequate relief and the Independent Commission on Disappearances was not an adequate body to investigate the case. The Committee considered the dialogue ongoing.

In a case regarding Peru's indigenous peoples' rights to enjoy their own culture, the State party replied by saying that in 2009 a law was passed respecting the right of indigenous communities to exploit water resources on their lands. The complaint's author, however, informed the Committee in July 2010 that the State party had not taken any measures to implement the Committee's views, and in fact had approved the drilling of 17 new wells on indigenous lands. The Committee considered the dialogue ongoing.

Moving on to the Philippines and a case of unfair trial, the State party explained that in 2009 following a complaint by petitioners, the case had been submitted to the Supreme Court, which had delayed the case to consider it with others. No compensation had been paid to the petitioners. In July 2010, consultations with the petitioners and others accused from the same incident had taken place. The Committee considered the dialogue ongoing.

Mr. Iwasawa then turned to two cases relating to the Russian Federation, one of which involved ill-treatment and failure to investigate. In September 2009 the State party submitted information to the Committee that the author's case had been reopened and the decision to close it in the first place had been deemed unlawful. In November 2009 the author sent a communication deploring the fact that the State party had not released any documents and decrying its failure to outline specific measures that had been taken to prevent similar acts in the future. The author said he had not been provided with an effective remedy. In April 2010, the investigation resumed, but the author refused to provide the location of his wife's body and the State party said that due to the time that had elapsed since the crime was committed it would be hard to identify the perpetrators. The Committee was awaiting comment from the author and considered the dialogue ongoing.

Regarding Spain, there were two cases under consideration, one of which involving the failure of review by a higher court. The author's complaint was sent to the State party for comment and Spain had not responded. Spain had also not responded to the Committee's recommendation in a second case.

There were also two cases in Tajikistan under consideration, one involving ill-treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, and the other involving an unfair trial. In both cases the State party disputed the views of the Committee and the Committee's decisions. The Committee sent this information to the authors of the complaints for comment and it was awaiting responses. The dialogue was considered ongoing.

The progress report on follow-up to Views was then adopted by the Committee.

The Committee will hold its next public meeting on Friday, 29 October when it will commemorate the anniversary of the 100th session of the Human Rights Committee with a programme focused on taking stock of the achievements, constraints and challenges faced by the Committee; assessing the implementation of the Covenant in various regions of the world; and identifying priorities for future activities of the Committee.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CT10/025E