Human Rights Committee continues to discuss the Draft General Comment on the Right to Life

Human Rights Committee

26 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 paragraph 29 of the draft text entitled “Rev.3.” and Paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 of the draft text entitled “Rev.2.” prepared by the two Committee Rapporteurs, Yuval Shany and Nigel Rodley. 

Debate between Experts focused on paragraph 29 of draft text “Rev.3” which stipulates that “the duty to protect life also imposes on States parties a due diligence obligation to take long-term measures to address the general conditions in society that may eventually give rise to direct threats of life.”  The paragraph goes on to stipulate that these general conditions “may include” gun violence, life threatening diseases, natural catastrophes, and extreme poverty, among others.

Several Experts had reservations regarding this paragraph and its essence.  More specifically, one Expert put into question the very essence of the paragraph, notably the issue of “long-term measures.”  In this regard, he questioned whether the Committee should be deciding on long-term strategies for States rather than suggesting immediate action.  The Committee had to distinguish between immediate actions and long-term strategies.  Another Expert warned that the paragraph addressed many aspects of a “basic standard or living,” which were laid down in Article 11 of the International Covenant of the Economic Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the judgement by the Inter-American Court whereby the “right to life” the State guaranteed dignified conditions of life.  While the concept of “life in dignity” was fine, the concept of “dignified existence” was problematic. The paragraph also addressed the concept of “progressive realisation of living” which was also problematic.  Experts warned that the paragraph went far beyond the intentions of the drafters of the Covenant and the capacities of the Committee and that States would not be likely in favour of it. 

Other Experts were in favour of the philosophy of the paragraph and the importance of long-term measures by States.  An Expert highlighted the obligation by the international community regarding the indivisibility of economic, social and cultural rights on the one hand, and civil and political rights on the other. Therefore, this paragraph need to be looked at in the light of indivisibility. The right to life was not in the biological sense, but rather as part of the concept of “dignified” life. Another Expert insisted that long-term measures were necessary, and that long and short-term could not be divided – they were complementary and interdependent. A couple of Experts recognized that this paragraph reflected the development of human rights since the adoption of the two Covenants, and the need for States to undertake all possible measures, as well as the increasing obligations of States. The paragraph was an elegant effort to navigate the boundaries between the different Article 6 and other rights.  Direct threats to life were the core of Article 6, but the paragraph recognized that if was conditions which gave way to direct threats were not addressed, States would not be able to protect the “right to life.”  An Expert reminded that the paragraph was in line with what the Committee had already agreed upon in terms of the “right to life with a dignity” in Paragraph 3.  Another Expert reminded that the rights could not be regarded restrictively, and, furthermore, that States had to undertake positive measures.

The Committee Chairperson informed that he had published a seventy-page document on the interdependence and indivisibility that should guide the work of the Treaty Bodies.  If the Committee lowered the standards in this paragraph, it would be painful for a body that looked into the implementation of human rights.

The Committee Rapporteurs assured the Experts that all discussions would be taken into consideration in a new draft paragraph, stating that the aim had been to strike a balance in order to be progressive and in line with the progress of international human rights in general but at the same time not revolutionary. The analytical purpose of the paragraph was not about social economic and cultural rights, but conditions that may give rise to violation of the “right to life.”  States had negative and positive obligations, and the positive obligations implied immediate and long-term obligations because the long-term obligations dealt with “causes.”

Experts then proceeded to examine paragraph 29 from draft text “Rev.2” which lays down that “an important element of the protection afforded to the right to life by the Covenant is the obligation to investigate and prosecute allegations of deprivation of life by State authorities or by private individuals and entities, including allegations of excessive use of lethal force.”  Experts debated the terms “immunities” and “amnesties” in the last paragraph, which stipulated that “immunities and amnesties are provided to perpetrators of international killings and to their superiors, leading to de facto impunity, are, as a rule, incompatible with the duty to respect and ensure the right to life, and to provide victims with an effective remedy.”  While some Experts stated that amnesty could lead to impunity, others noted that some States used amnesty as the only way to put an end to civil war.  The Rapporteurs explained that the paragraph covered not just the responsibilities of States, but also armed groups.

There was general agreement on paragraph 30 of draft text “Rev.2” which stipulates the expectations by the Committee of States when conducting investigations, namely that these had to be “independent, impartial, prompt, thorough, effective, credible, and transparent,” and that State parties had to take appropriate measures to establish the truth, inter alia.  A couple of Experts proposed amendments of formulations and an Expert proposed including a sentence on the protective measures for victims. Several Experts raised the Minnesota Protocol Creating Guidelines for Effective Investigations and proposed that this it be footnoted in the paragraph, informing that it was currently under review by the Independent Expert.

Experts also discussed paragraph 31 which underlines that “the loss of life occurring in custody, especially when accompanied by reliable reports of an unnatural death, create[d] a presumption of arbitrary deprivation of life by State authorities,”  which necessitates a proper investigation. Experts debated the “presumption” argument, as well as the idea of the “heightened duty to investigate” in cases of use of firearms.


The Human Rights Committee will next meet in public on Monday, 31 October 2016 at 10 a.m. to discuss the Progress report of the Special Rapporteur on Follow-Up to Concluding Observations.
__________________

For use of the information media; not an official record

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