HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE DISCUSSES HUMAN RIGHTS INDICATORS AND THE INFLUENCE OF PARLIAMENTARIANS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Human Rights Committee

27 July 2009



This afternoon, the Human Rights Committee held a dialogue with a representative of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the development of human rights indicators designed to measure progress in certain human rights areas. The Committee also discussed the importance of Parliaments in developing legislation in conformity with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with a representative of the Inter-Parliamentary-Union.

Concerning the statistical measuring of progress in human rights, Experts raised doubts whether ranking States would be in the spirit of the Covenant. While some Experts doubted the relevance of the whole project, others cautioned that it was necessary to use the human rights indicators carefully for some selected subjects. Others were optimistic that, for example with regard to data on violence against women, indicators would assist the Committee work. In the discussion on the role of Parliaments in the promotion and protection of human rights, Experts agreed on the importance of the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. They suggested the development of best practices and the building of relationship with universities in order to firmly anchor the integration of human rights in legislation.

When the Committee meets again in public on Wednesday, 29 July at 11 a.m. it will hear progress reports on follow-up to concluding observations and on follow-up to Views (judgments rendered by the Committee on individual communications).

Dialogue with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Human Rights Indicators

NICOLAS FASEL, of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), presented the report on indicators for promoting and monitoring the implementation of human rights prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in response to a request from the Inter-Committee Meeting (ICM) of treaty bodies in June 2006. The report outlined a conceptual and methodological framework for identifying indicators for monitoring compliance with international human rights instruments. The work on indicators was designed to help the various human rights treaty bodies make use of statistical information in States parties’ reports in assessing the implementation of human rights. Lists of illustrative indicators were elaborated on a number of human rights: the right to life; the right to liberty and security of person; the right to participate in public affairs; the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right to a fair trial; the right to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; the right to adequate food; the right to adequate housing; the right to education; the right to social security; and the right to work.

Those indicators had then been subjected to a validation process involving, at the first stage, discussions with an identified panel of experts, including experts from treaty bodies, human rights special procedure mandate-holders, academia, non-governmental organizations and relevant international organizations, Mr. Fasel said. At the second stage, discussions had been held with national level stakeholders, including human rights institutions, policy makers and agencies responsible for reporting on the implementation of the human rights treaties, statistical agencies responsible for data collection and representatives from relevant non-governmental organizations. Those consultations were held in the context of regional and country level workshops.
Over the past two years, the base of indicators had been broadened and more human rights had been taken into account. Indicators were considered as supporting judicial indicators and should facilitate follow-up of implementation of human rights. Quantitative and qualitative indicators were both considered while keeping indicators as simple as possible. OHCHR was at the moment working on the user manual, which would make the indicators more accessible to everyone.

MARTIN SCHEININ, Chairperson of the Experts’ Consultation on Indicators, said that he hoped that the indicators would be helpful in the work of the Committee. It was not a mere ranking of countries and had to be approached carefully. The normative task of assessing a country’s compliance with the Committee would always stay with the Committee.

A Committee Expert said that although it had been a challenge to come up with structural, process and outcome indicators on violence against women, that had been all the more difficult for indicators on non-discrimination. This was only a tool and could never be the last word on a State’s obligation and could only assist the qualitative assessment of the Committee. Those indicators now needed to be tested and made more user-friendly. If the Committee would in the future choose to only discuss a few issues with each country instead of all, this framework would be very helpful.

It would be possible to rank countries in their implementation of a specific right, several Experts noted. That could then be compared to other rankings as done by Freedom House or Transparency International. Was such a ranking envisaged? Experts noted that such a ranking by the United Nations was especially sensitive. This data could be used to allocate World Bank funds, which was problematic. Experts also feared that such indicators would be abused to get rid of human rights treaty bodies. Moreover, if taken seriously, the project would eat up a big portion of the budget and would that be useful?

An Expert said that the concept of human rights indicators was not a new concept. However, they had been so far been used for rather economic, social and cultural rights. The system could be abused, for example, by countries saying that they had made progress in a field such as for example in the field of enforced disappearance. Enforced disappearances should not be possible altogether and countries should not be able to be proud of reducing their number (rather than eliminating them entirely). Moreover, often proportions were not that important, but simply the fact that a country had gotten ridden off a certain legal provision which was contrary to the Convention. The Expert noted that he was against all kind of ranking so that countries could not compete against each other in a bad way. Human rights indicators were tools, but the Human Rights Committee should be very careful in their application. However, there were some issues such as violence against women where the Committee could benefit from the statistical information. The sociological context of an issue was important in that regard. An Expert further cautioned that countries would prioritize those rights for which indicators had been chosen.

Concluding the briefing, Mr. Scheinin and Mr. Fasel said that there was no intention of comparing countries, although technically it could be done. Countries should rather use those indicators as benchmarks. As to costs, the indicators should not be more expensive than producing other statistical information. It was true that they could be used to other means, as for the attribution of development aid, but that was beyond the scope of the human rights treaty bodies anyway.

Dialogue on Follow-Up to Concluding Observations by Parliaments

INGEBORG SCHWARZ, Director of the Human Rights Programme of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, said that the Inter-Parliamentary Union was for parliaments what the United Nations was for States. The main goal of the Union was to promote and advance peace and democracy. The Union had some means to exert pressure on Governments in case of violation of human rights, in which the Union kept reminding Governments of their duties relating to specific cases. With regard to the Human Rights Committee, the Union had an awareness-raising role. In addition, regarding the concluding observations of the Committee, nothing could be done without the parliament of the respective country. To support Parliamentarians, the Union had published a booklet for Parliamentarians on human rights.

Ms. Schwarz noted that sensitive issues as the death penalty could be raised thanks to the Union’s activities. The Libreville Declaration had been adopted in March 2009 on increasing regional parliamentary cooperation with treaty organs concerned with human rights. The next seminar of the Union included a presentation of the methods of work of the Human Rights Committee.

A Committee Expert said that the Declaration of Libreville was the epitome of what the Human Rights Committee would wish for: a group of parliamentarians following the observations of human rights treaty bodies and then reminding their colleagues in parliament to consider those in daily issues. The human rights perspective should also not be forgotten in foreign policy and an Expert asked whether the Union paid attention to that. As to awareness-raising, an Expert noted that in Latin America awareness existed only on the issues of enforced disappearances, torture and extrajudicial killings and more could be done for other issues. An Expert encouraged the Union to form strategic relationships with universities and law schools in order to help human rights being integrated in legislation. An Expert also suggested that the Union develop best practice models and disseminate them to parliamentarians.

Experts asked what various models existed regarding national human rights institutions, in particular whether they were sometimes placed under the parliament directly instead of under the Ministry of Justice. The Committee would also welcome constructive feedback on the utility of the observations of the Committee concerning legislation.

Responding to questions and comments, Ms. Schwarz said, regarding awareness-raising, that parliamentarians in general were not aware at all what, for example, their Permanent Mission was telling the Human Rights Council here in Geneva. If they were, that would lead to more attention being paid to the subject. Parliaments should not consider themselves as the prolonged arm of the Government, even though they were considered as such by non-governmental organizations or the United Nations. The Union tried to encourage the majority party in parliaments to be aware of those and also to challenge the executive’s view if necessary.

___________

For use of the information media; not an official record