Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Holds Informal Meeting with States to Discuss its Working Methods and the Treaty Body Strengthening Process
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this afternoon held an informal meeting with States, during which it discussed its working methods and the treaty body strengthening process.
Mohamed Abdel Moneim, Chair of the Committee, said the Committee decided to convene the meeting to address the challenges facing the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights and also the organs in the United Nations concerned with encouraging and promoting the fulfilment of the obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.
Michael Windfuhr, Committee Vice-Chair, speaking on the treaty body strengthening process, said treaty body reform was of particular importance. A small infrastructure had been established within the Committee, coordinating and preparing positions for the Committee to discuss and adopt, and many recommendations issuing from that had been to simplify the reporting process for States, to decrease the burden of reporting, and to avoid the duplication of work. The Committee was also in favour of a predictable working calendar and a harmonisation of working methods.
Laura Craciunean-Tatu, Committee Expert, discussing the issue of reporting and follow-up, said there were developments on the reporting procedure, and to present date 34 States parties had submitted their reports. As of today, 54 States parties still had overdue periodic reports, and of these 17 were more than 10 years overdue. To date, 27 States parties had initial reports overdue, 19 of which were more than 10 years overdue. The Committee was looking forward to hear if there were impediments to submissions.
Asraf Caunhye, Committee Follow-Up Rapporteur, said that in its concluding observations, the Committee usually selected three recommendations to be used in the follow-up procedure, which required urgent attention in the next 24 months. The follow-up report should focus on concrete measures taken for a practical implementation of the three specific recommendations selected by the Committee. This was vital for enhancing the progressive realisation of the economic, social and cultural rights to which the State party stood committed.
Ludovic Hennebel, Chair of the Committee’s Working Group on individual communications, briefing on the work of the Committee under the Optional Protocol on individual communications, said there was a need to reach a more robust developmental level, which would require more States to join the Protocol. This was work that was extremely important, and faced three challenges: to convince States to further ratify the Protocol; to support the requests of the Committee so that it could work in better conditions; and for States to recognise that the work and jurisprudence decisions of the Committee were major and substantiated.
Rodrigo Uprimny, Committee Vice Chair and Co-Rapporteur on general comments, said currently the Committee was moving forward on two general comments. First, a general comment on land and economic, social and cultural rights. The second general comment was on sustainable development and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
El Salvador, Russian Federation, Panama, China, Belarus, India, Mexico, Egypt, Finland, Belgium, United Kingdom and Luxembourg addressed the Committee.
Speakers said that strengthening the work of the treaty bodies was a very important process, but it should take into account that these schedules should not be incompatible with the schedules of other treaty bodies, the Human Rights Council, and the Universal Periodic Review. There should be care in introducing innovative ideas, and States parties should be able to opt out of the simplified reporting procedure. Greater attention should be paid to allowing States to submit their work in a timely manner, which allowed the Committee to better plan its work and have a better dialogue.
Speakers also asked for more details about the results of the meeting of Chairs of the treaty bodies earlier this year, including what measures had been discussed to avoid an overlap in the submission of periodic reports by States and the regular Human Rights Council sessions, as these coincided to a large extent. Many speakers also raised the issue of establishing a more predictable timeline, including whether it would be implemented in 2024.
The hybrid format was of great assistance to developing countries, speakers said, noting that it was practical to use modern technology to facilitate work, but it should not be an alternative to communication and direct stakeholder engagement. However, a speaker said, given financial constraints and the desire to limit CO2 emissions, delegations that wished to interact whilst staying in their capital should be allowed to do so. While there was no substitute to in-person presence, countries could now participate in fora that they could not participate in before
In concluding remarks, the Committee Chair thanked the States parties to the Covenant for providing high-quality reports, despite the burden of reporting, for sending high-level delegations, and for responding timely to concluding observations and follow-up questions. The Committee felt it was on the right track, but it had to be enabled to continue on this track as there were many challenges to be met. Mr. Abdel Moneim said the Committee wanted positive engagement in order to achieve the obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and to have an optimal enjoyment of all human rights.
All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed at http://webtv.un.org/. Meeting coverage releases of public meetings of the Committee can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public at 5:30 p.m. on Friday, 14 October, when it will close the session.
Statements by the Committee Experts
MOHAMED ABDEL MONEIM, Chair of the Committee, in introductory remarks, said the Committee decided to convene this meeting to address the challenges facing the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights and also the organs in the United Nations concerned with encouraging and promoting the fulfilment of the obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights. This meeting was made for the delegates as for the Experts to be fulfilling and fully operational, they had to learn from and listen to the States. He was also very glad to be speaking Arabic once more, as there was interpretation from that language in this meeting.
MICHAEL WINDFUHR, Committee Vice-Chair, speaking on the treaty body strengthening process, said treaty body reform was of particular importance. A small infrastructure had been established within the Committee, coordinating and preparing positions for the Committee to discuss and adopt, and many recommendations issuing from that had been to simplify the reporting process for States, to decrease the burden of reporting, and to avoid duplication of work. The Committee was also in favour of a predictable working calendar and a harmonisation of working methods, with a policy of avoiding duplication with other committees.
Based on these discussions, a paper had been prepared for the consideration of all Chairs of the treaty bodies, so that they arrived at a harmonised position, agreeing on a common agenda with a simplified procedure, and requesting additional resources. If the Committee adopted a predictable calendar, then there was a need for additional meeting time, as there were a number of non-reporting States which required coverage, as did the backlog of reports and cases before the Committee. The Committee also supported the decision made by the Chairs of the treaty bodies in the common document that they were open to use digitalisation and to use a common information technology structure, believing that this overall endeavour would improve the effectiveness of the treaty body system.
LAURA CRACIUNEAN-TATU, Committee Expert, discussing the issue of reporting and follow-up, said to present date 34 States parties had submitted their reports, with on average of 12 being received each year. As of today, 54 States parties still had overdue periodic reports, and 17 were more than 10 years overdue. To date, 27 had initial reports overdue, 19 of which were more than 10 years overdue. The Committee would appreciate cooperation in this, and was looking forward to hear if there were impediments to submission, and how it could help. The pilot phase of the simplified reporting procedure had come to an end, and the Committee had decided to make it available to all States parties with a simplified opt-out procedure. The Committee hoped to move to an eight-year cycle, but this was not currently possible.
ASRAF CAUNHYE, Committee Rapporteur on follow-up, said that the Committee in its concluding observations usually selected three recommendations to be used in the follow-up procedure, which required urgent attention in the next 24 months. It was vital for States parties to subscribe to this 24-month timeframe. The follow-up report should focus on concrete measures taken for a practical implementation of the three specific recommendations selected by the Committee. There were three types of assessment of the progress made in implementing these: sufficient progress, no progress, and partial progress. There were also situations where there was no response by the State party or there was a lack of information, and the State party was then required to submit the information on the selected recommendations. This was vital for enhancing the progressive realisation of the economic, social and cultural rights to which the State party stood committed.
LUDOVIC HENNEBEL, Chair of the Committee’s Working Group on individual communications, speaking on the work of the Committee under the Optional Protocol on individual communications, said as all were aware, the Committee was competent to receive individual communications, since the Optional Protocol on individual communications came into force in 2013. There was a need to reach a more robust developmental level, which would require more States to join the Optional Protocol. To date, the Committee had taken a stance on 94 individual communications, ruled on the status of 12, and ruled 24 inadmissible. There were 196 communications awaiting consideration.
The Working Group dealt with the registration of communications and granted interim measures over the course of a year. This was work that was extremely important for the work on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and faced three challenges: to convince States to further ratify the Protocol; to have them support the requests of the Committee so that it could work in better conditions; and to have States recognise that the work and jurisprudence decisions of the Committee were major and substantiated. To deal with these three challenges, the Committee required the assistance of States.
RODRIGO UPRIMNY, Committee Vice Chair and Co-Rapporteur on general comments, speaking on the ongoing work on general comments, said currently the Committee was moving forward on two general comments. First, a general comment on land and economic, social and cultural rights, which was initiated some years ago. There were regional consultations and a day of general discussion in 2019, which were held based on a document on the chief problems related to the right to land and economic, social and cultural rights. The Committee had agreed on a first draft, which was submitted for interventions by stakeholders; 119 observations and comments had been received in response, of which 17 were from States parties. Since then, the Committee had been discussing the final version of the general comment which sought to integrate the observations made by those that had commented.
The second general comment on sustainable development and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was initiated several years ago, and the Committee hoped to hold a day of general discussion in February next year and adopt a first draft for submission for consultations and comments from external stakeholders with a view to adopting it in early 2024. Currently the Committee was contemplating preparing other general comments, without taking any decision yet. The Committee had decided to address four themes: on the relationship between armed conflict and economic, social and cultural rights; on drug policy and economic, social and cultural rights; on the economic, social and cultural rights of indigenous peoples; and an update to the general comment on the economic, social and cultural rights of older persons.
Statements by States
El Salvador said this meeting was an important space for sharing information and points of view and the challenges that the treaty bodies system posed for States. El Salvador had held a review with the Committee remotely, as it had not proven possible financially to move a large delegation to Geneva. El Salvador wished to underline that resolution 268 on strengthening and improving the functioning of the treaty body system called on the Office of the High Commissioner to establish video conference facilities to give all the opportunity to participate in reviews. While this was no substitute to in-person presence, lessons learned now allowed countries like El Salvador to participate in fora that it could not participate in before.
Russian Federation said the lack of resources was linked to their ineffective use by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Russia had repeatedly asked the Office to reassess this. With effective distribution of time, the number of national reports under consideration by the Committee could be increased. The Committee should discuss how wise it was to move to the simplified reporting procedure, which the Russian Federation did not agree with. Drafting general comments should not be a priority.
Panama asked if Committee Experts could delve deeper into the results of the meeting of Chairs of the treaty bodies earlier this year, and asked about establishing a more predictable timeline. What measures had been discussed during the meetings to avoid an overlap in the submission of periodic reports by States and the regular Human Rights Council sessions, as these coincided to a large extent? The hybrid format would be of great assistance to developing countries.
China said the COVID-19 pandemic kept on resurfacing, and global economic recovery was fragile and unsteady. Developing countries worked to promote economic, social and cultural rights in the post-pandemic recovery, and the Committee should make positive contributions in this regard. China appreciated the work of the Committee. The six United Nations working languages should be treated equally and have the same status in the work of the Committee.
Belarus said strengthening the work of the treaty bodies was a very important process, however, there should be care in introducing innovative ideas. The issue of the languages was important, as it sometimes took six months to get the questions translated. The time devoted to dialogue with States parties was insufficient, particularly with regard to this Covenant, which covered such a broad swathe of human rights. On bolstering the work of the treaty bodies, greater attention should be paid to allowing States to submit their work in a timely manner, which allowed the Committee to better plan its work and have a better dialogue.
India asked whether States that had used the simplified reporting procedure could still use the standard reporting procedure for their report, or did they have to wait until they received the recommendations. With regard to the comment by Panama, India believed that any overlap between the work of the Committee and the Human Rights Council would impair States’ participation in the review meeting.
Mexico said the work of the treaty bodies was fundamental in monitoring the work of States with regard to human rights, and applauded the work of the Chairs to simplify the reporting procedures. On general comments, Mexico was interested in tackling issues concerning drug policies as well as indigenous peoples. It would be interesting for Mexico to have access to that information and to make a contribution in drafting the general comment.
Egypt said with regard to treaty body strengthening and the calendars of work, this was an important subject in order to enhance the work of the various treaty bodies, but it was important to also take into account that these schedules should not be incompatible with the schedules of other treaty bodies, the Human Rights Council, and the Universal Periodic Review. With regard to using information technology, Egypt found it was very important to use modern technology in treaty bodies to facilitate their work, but it should not be an alternative to communication and engagement that was direct with stakeholders.
Finland asked what the current average time for communications to be considered was and for a decision to be adopted.
Belgium said it was clear that Committee Experts wanted to be present in Geneva, but given financial constraints and the desire to limit CO2 emissions, delegations that wished to interact whilst staying in their capital should be allowed to do so. When would the harmonised calendar be established? It seemed that it could maybe be put in place for 2024.
United Kingdom asked if there were specific timelines on moving forward towards simplified reporting, and whether the Committee had a timeline on getting the appropriate resources for these plans. The United Kingdom also shared the hope that Committee meetings would be held outside periods of Human Rights Council meetings.
Luxembourg appreciated the idea of the simplified reporting procedure to meet the demands of Committees for reports. The formulated general comments were a useful aide that complemented the work carried out by the other treaty bodies but also by the Special Procedure mandate holders, and all States could benefit from using them.
Response by Committee Experts
Committee Experts said simplified reporting could help States that were not so resource-rich, and would release the burden of reporting obligations, while at the same time allowing them to focus on the real problems that were germane to the country, and could help with delays in reports. It could be particularly helpful in overcoming the delays on reporting. The predictable calendar should be harmonised with the other bodies, including the treaty bodies and the Universal Periodic Review, which would lead to a much better distribution of reporting obligations for States parties. Hopefully the predictable calendar could begin in 2024. For the time being, States parties had been offered the choice of either to use simplified reporting or the old style. The best way of preventing any overlap between different meetings was a predictable calendar, as it allowed to avoid any duplication, and there was therefore a need for additional resources so the Committee could hold a third session and consider the reports of all States.
On hybrid formats, Committee Experts said it had been discussed extensively at the meeting of the Chairs of the treaty bodies, and it had been declared that all treaty bodies preferred to meet with States in person, as it allowed for more immediate reactions and was of a higher quality. The work could benefit from using advanced communication platforms, but meetings should be in person as a regular routine, and hybrid meetings only held exceptionally. At the same time, it was important to be able to exchange opinions and listen closely to the concerns of the States themselves.
On the prioritisation of work, and whether the Committee should focus more on reviewing reports than general comments, Experts said the Committee believed that its general comments were important as they allowed States to interpret the Covenant, which was a living document and not a static one. The way in which obligations under the Covenant evolved in time was important in the work of the Committee, which would also consider how to better adjust the percentage of time it spent on general comments and considering reports of States parties. Experts were pleased to hear that many speakers applauded the four themes it had decided to tackle in its next general comments.
On the timeframes, deadlines and requirements to address an individual communication, Committee Experts said the time between registering and adopting a decision was usually about three years based on the current state of affairs, and this had grown due to the large volume of submissions, and there was a vital need to establish methods able to address disputes in a collective fashion. The Committee needed to consider its methodology and the need for additional resources in order to deal with delays.
Many Experts also raised the issue of the use of the six official United Nations languages, saying that the more languages used, the greater benefit for humanity as a whole. Several Experts also appreciated the opportunity of being able to speak their own languages as this meeting had interpretation in the six official languages of the United Nations, while the Committee meetings only had interpretation in three official languages. One Expert also raised the issue of gender balance in the Committee, saying that States parties who nominated candidates should make it possible for the Committee to have better gender representation.
Concluding Remarks
MOHAMED ABDEL MONEIM, Chair of the Committee, said with regard to the meeting of the Chairs of the treaty bodies, he assumed that representatives had read the report of the General Assembly on that meeting (A/77/228). The meeting had agreed on the conclusions stated above, namely on the predictable calendar, but it could not be predictable without the help of States parties. On the eight-year calendar, this had implications in implementation, not just for the Committee, but for the entire system. It was meant to alleviate the burden on States, but within the eight years there was an important follow-up review meeting on issues which the Committee considered important enough to follow-up on in a timelier manner.
The Chairs’ meeting also understood that certain countries preferred to hold meetings online. When the report was concise and specific, then such a meeting was productive. The Chairs’ meeting had decided that meetings had to be synchronous with the Human Rights Council, as the Council should not replace the work of the treaty bodies. Everything would be done on the part of the treaty bodies and the Office of the High Commissioner to achieve synchronisation.
The mandate of the Committee was vast, and time was squeezed to the extent that Experts worked intensively between sessions. The burden on the Committee was very heavy, and the Committee would hopefully have an extra session to deal with the backlog. The issue was to consider the situation of economic, social and cultural rights in the world, and challenges were really increasing. The Committee believed in the integrity of all human rights: if one was destabilised, whether it be by COVID-19 or inflation, which was catastrophic, then the Committee had to consider it in its work.
Mr. Abdel Moneim thanked the States parties to the Covenant for providing high-quality reports, despite the burden of reporting, for sending high-level delegations, and for responding timely to concluding observations and follow-up questions. The Committee felt it was on the right track, but it had to be enabled to continue on this track: there were many challenges to be met. Finally, Mr. Abdel Moneim said the Committee wanted positive engagement in order to achieve the obligations in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and to have an optimal enjoyment of all human rights.
__________
CESCR22.016E