Human Rights Committee continues to discuss draft General Comment on the right to life

Human Rights Committee

25 October 2016

The Human Rights Committee this afternoon continued its discussion and first reading on a draft General Comment on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life.  General comments adopted by the Committee are intended to help States parties fulfil their obligations under the Covenant.  The Committee discussed two drafts prepared by the two Committee Rapporteurs, Yuval Shany and Nigel Rodley.  During its previous session in July 2016, the Committee had examined paragraphs 5, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 in a first reading, which were summarised in a draft text, entitled “Rev.5.”  Those articles were revisited in a first reading during the first part of the meeting.  In addition, the Committee examined in a first reading, paragraphs 26 and 27 from the draft text entitled “Rev.2.”

Exchanges between Experts focused on paragraph 5, which referred to special protection for the right to life on the rights of persons with disabilities. There was a general agreement that the wording of Article 10 of the Convention of Rights for Persons with Disabilities could be undertaken, and the reference against deprivation, in order to make the text more comprehensive, be deleted. The notion of basic social services was also debated. One Expert suggested that it was time to ask States not to impose the death penalty on persons with disabilities, in line with a general trend in domestic legislation as well as by international instruments. Experts agreed that this statement would be better placed in the paragraph on the death penalty.

Experts also debated paragraph 21, which laid down the positive obligations and the duty to protect by States. States had a legal obligation to protect the right to life, and to undertake appropriate legal measures to protect life.  One Expert stated her concern that by mixing the States’ duty to protect and their duty to refrain, or States’ positive and negative obligations, the Committee risked lowering expectations and duties from States.  Another Expert insisted that the right to life was not granted in all national constitutions, and that therefore the language in the parentheses was indeed necessary. It was agreed to replace the phrase in parentheses by a more clear statement, and to replace the word “possible” with “foreseeable.”   Another Expert voices his concerns regarding the structure, which the Rapporteurs assured would be addressed at the end.

On paragraph 22 defining the duty to protect by law the right to life, the Rapporteurs suggested an additional amendment which was not in the text, namely adding the word “unlawful” to the “depravation of life”.

Experts also debated paragraph 23, which regulated the deprivation of life, and paragraph 24 on the duty to take positive measures to protect the right to life, where one of the issues debated was “due diligence.” The Rapporteurs explained that the word “due diligence” had been purposefully omitted in the last sentence, as that sentence also referred to private entities. Another Expert had understood that the division in the paragraph was between attacks against life by extra-legal entities, such as armed groups and terrorists, and legal organisations, be they private or public.

On paragraph 25, which underlined that States should take appropriate measures to protect individuals against deprivations of life by other States operating within their territory, an Expert had doubts on the meaning of the second sentence.  Another Expert suggested that the paragraph reiterate in the beginning that it was about the positive obligations of the State.  The core of the Article, another Expert stated, was the duty to protect extraterritorially.  Therefore, she suggested replacing the word “should” with “shall,” as States did have a jurisdiction and a duty to protect individuals outside their territory. Experts debated the term “foreseeable impact on the right to life of individuals outside their territory” and agreed that it was important, especially having in mind that corporate entities engaged in activities that posed a threat to life which was only evident after a certain time.  

The Committee then proceeded to examine paragraphs 26 and 27 of the original document which had been circulated a year ago, “Rev.2.”

Following a debate, it was agreed that the Rapporteurs would further work on paragraph 26 which stipulated that the duty to protect the right to life required States parties to take exceptional measures of protection towards vulnerable persons. 

Regarding paragraph 27, which stipulated that State parties have a heightened obligation to take effective measures to protect the lives of individuals incarcerated by the State, an Expert suggested replacing “responsibility” with obligation, while another Expert suggested to delete “life threatening” from the word “diseases.”  The Rapporteurs would discuss the issue of orphanages and effective measures, as well as street children.

The Human Rights Committee will next meet in public tomorrow, 26 October 2016 at 3 p.m. to continue its debate on the draft General Comment on Article 6 (Right to Life).

__________________
For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr