Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONTINUES DISCUSSION ON TREATY BODY REFORM
18 August 2005
Share
Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination
18 August 2005
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning continued its discussion on treaty body reform, speaking with María-Francisca Ize-Charrin, Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Chief of the Treaties and Commission Branch of the Office. The discussion will be continued at a future session.
Introducing the current situation of the discussion, Committee Expert Linos Alexandre Sicilianos said the first element that had been covered in the previous debate was that any reform of the system should strengthen it, and not weaken it; and that the problem of racial discrimination should be put into focus and highlighted, as it was a problem being faced by most societies and should not be diluted in any reform. Regarding the objectives of such reform, the Committee agreed with the main objectives to strengthen the system, and to bring about a unification of methods of work, but the question was whether a unified treaty body was actually the most appropriate solution to the problems that had been identified by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the general feeling of the Committee on this subject had been quite sceptical.
Addressing the Committee, Ms. Ize-Charrin said the suggestion regarding the establishment of a so-called unified standing treaty body made by the High Commissioner in her Plan of Action represented a search for enhanced protection of groups and individuals at the national level and for greater efficiency of the treaty monitoring system. Any reform should be based on an acknowledgement of the qualities of the existing system, and a clear assessment of its advantages and shortcomings. The ultimate objective of any reform of the treaty body system had to be to enhance protection of rights-holders and efficiency of the treaty body monitoring system, and the pros and cons of a single body would need to be carefully assessed.
In the ensuing discussion, Experts raised various issues and topics, among others the legal aspects of the problem of reform in the context of the necessary changes to the various international conventions and the possible new optional protocol; the need for a unified body dealing with individual communications as this would give them a higher international visibility and thus not allow States to disregard them as was sometimes the case today; that one unified body might have less Experts, with concomitant less expertise, and recommendations issuing from that body might be less useful; and the issue of potential marginalisation or, conversely, inversed prominence, that could be given to the issues that were now given undivided attention under the current system.
Concluding, Ms. Ize-Charrin said the process was still at the starting phase and the dialogue with States had just begun. Many States had expressed interest in targeted reports. On whether an additional protocol was required, the opinion of all stakeholders, in particular the treaty body experts, would be crucial in this regard. Several Experts had referred to the estimates of costs of an eventual unified treaty system, and the issue would be dealt with in due time, as this was required in order to keep the reform’s feet on the ground. Because the Office also needed time to grow, there was no other possibility than the gradualistic approach to the reform process, which was the most reasonable and the most effective approach for preserving all the good work that had been done to date.
The next public meeting of the Committee will be held at 10 a.m. on Friday 19 August 2005, when the Committee will discuss its annual report to the General Assembly, issue its final releases on country reports considered during the session and close the session.
Discussion
LINOS ALEXANDRE SICILIANOS, Committee Expert, welcoming Ms. Ize-Charrin, said the first element that had been covered in the previous debate was that any reform of the system should strengthen it, and not weaken it; the problem of racial discrimination should be put into focus and highlighted, as it was a problem being faced by most societies and should not be diluted in any reform; in order to carry out any type of reform, there was a need for broad consultation with the treaty bodies, Member States, civil society, non-governmental organizations and national institutions which were playing a more and more important role. Regarding the objectives of such reform, the Committee agreed with the main objectives outlined by High Commissioner Louise Arbour, mainly to strengthen the system, and to bring about a unification of methods of work. The question was to know whether a unified treaty body was actually the most appropriate solution to the problems that had been identified by the High Commissioner. The general feeling of the members of the Committee on this subject had been quite sceptical for a number of reasons, including the possible marginalisation of certain instruments.
Regarding some of the proposals that the Committee had come up with, these included to continue with the approach related to a broadened report and targeted reports; the need to implement as quickly as possible the recommendations of the Presidents and Chairpersons of the different Committees in order to get results more rapidly; to follow the example of the Committee on Human Rights and create chambers or small bodies in order to absorb the back-log of consideration of reports; the issue of backlog of complaints and the need for a strengthening of this procedure through a special group dealing with individual complaints; the establishment of a unified body to deal with individual communications, thus bringing together the activities of the five Committees, and which in the end could enjoy greater visibility; the possibility of strengthening the follow-up procedures; and the need not to duplicate work between the future Human Rights Council and the treaty bodies and for them to work together and in complementarity so that the Council provided political support to the treaty bodies.
MARÍA-FRANCISCA IZE-CHARRIN, Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Chief of the Treaties and Commission Branch of the Office, said she was very pleased to see the interest in this discussion as expressed by all the Experts, and could not stress enough the fact that their contribution to the debate was absolutely crucial in order to achieve the best possible result in terms of improvement of the system. She had taken good note of the proposals for further action spelt out by Committee Expert Linos Alexandre Sicilianos at the previous discussion on the subject on 17 August 2005.
The suggestion regarding the establishment of a so-called unified standing treaty body made by the High Commissioner in her Plan of Action represented a search for enhanced protection of groups and individuals at the national level and for greater efficiency of the treaty monitoring system. Extensive consultations were necessary to look into the idea of a unified treaty body, and discuss possible options to attain a better implementation of the treaties. The opinion of all stakeholders would need to be sought in order to render this process as informed and participatory as possible, and, ultimately, to move towards decisions. No decision had been adopted yet, and the Committee, as well as other members of treaty bodies and all other stakeholders would be closely consulted at all stages of the process.
A concept paper would be developed in an open, participatory way, Ms. Ize-Charrin said. It had not yet even started to be drafted, and the Committee was among the very first to be consulted, as it was their experience, expertise and ideas which would help to study and identify relevant questions and the best options for the benefit of rights-holders. The Office was at the initial stages of identifying areas which would require in-depth examination in the process of developing the concept paper, and any expert advice would be welcomed. Colleagues in the Treaties and Commission Branch had selected various issues needing further study, among which were legal and procedural questions related to the establishment of a unified standing body; questions related to the possible modalities of such a body; and the role of stakeholders. Currently under examination were ways to ensure that all concerned could provide input into the process of drawing up the concept paper, and several ways had been envisaged to that effect. All of this would hopefully allow for the concept paper to be available in early 2006, and to circulate it for comments to all treaty body members and to other stakeholders such as academics and international experts, national human rights institutions and NGOs.
Ms. Ize-Charrin said the Committee’s fundamental concern that due attention might no longer be given to the crucial issue of racial discrimination if the monitoring of the Convention was entrusted to what was currently called a unified standing treaty body had been taken note of. This concern had to, and would, be addressed extremely seriously. The High Commissioner was fully committed to ensuring that any reform of the treaty body system would enhance the protection for all groups and individuals at the national level, in particular in areas as important as that of racial discrimination, which she had identified in her Plan of Action as one of the main human rights challenges.
It was clear for the Office, Ms. Ize-Charrin said, that any reform should be based on an acknowledgement of the qualities of the existing system, and a clear assessment of its advantages and shortcomings. The Office had been actively engaged in strengthening the implementation of treaty bodies’ recommendations through various projects. The need to strengthen further the follow-up to treaty body recommendations, as suggested by Mr. Sicilianos at the earlier meeting, could not be ignored, and nor could the view that the implementation of the recommendations of the chairpersons and inter-committee meetings should be enhanced. As for the need to clarify the relationship between treaty bodies and the future Human Rights Council, in order to avoid duplication, it was too early to get a complete picture of the outcome of the reform of the Commission on Human Rights.
Ms. Ize-Charrin concluded by emphasising the High Commissioner’s strong view that the ultimate objective of any reform of the treaty body system had to be to enhance protection of rights-holders and efficiency of the treaty body monitoring system, and the pros and cons of a single body would need to be carefully assessed.
Committee Experts then raised various issues and topics, including the legal aspects of the problem of reform in the context of the necessary changes to the various international conventions and the possible new optional protocol; the issue of support from States, as this was a big question-mark as to what would actually influence their position on a unified treaty body which could have an international jurisdiction in the area of human rights; the need to be realistic regarding the reform if this was tending towards the idea of a unified body, as technical elements might water down the initial idea as they would have to take into account the various political positions; whether the concept paper would set out an estimate of the envisaged unified treaty body system, and whether there would be an increase compared to current costs; the need for a unified body dealing with individual communications as this would give them a higher international visibility and thus not allow States to disregard them as was sometimes the case today; that the solution to reform was a structural one by creating one unified body was not necessarily the correct path to take as it might not necessarily provide a solution to existing problems; that one unified body might have less Experts, with concomitant less expertise, and recommendations issuing from that body might be less useful; and the issue of potential marginalisation or, conversely, inversed prominence, that could be given to the issues that were now given undivided attention under the current system.
In concluding remarks, Ms. Ize-Charrin said being realistic, she could not provide an answer to all the questions and issues raised, although these would be kept on the list of the issues to be kept in mind during the reform process. Regarding the importance of the political aspect, which was raised by several Experts, this was obviously crucial in the work, although the process was still at the starting phase and the dialogue with States had just begun. Many States had expressed interest in targeted reports. On the issue of NGOs, they were very interested in being consulted in the process, although they did not yet seem to have a cohesive and coherent point of view. On whether an additional protocol was required, the opinion of all stakeholders, in particular treaty body experts, would be crucial in this regard.
Several Experts had referred to the estimates of costs of an eventual unified treaty system, and the issue would be dealt with in due time, as this was required in order to keep the reform’s feet on the ground. Regarding the fact that the process would be based on continued dialogue, there was strong commitment for this in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. With regard to the issue of coordination at the national level, this was a shared concern, and the problem existed whatever the size of the country, as coordination was the largest problem. On the problem of resources, there was a new commitment from States parties with regard to the regular budget of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and this should be doubled within five years as per commitments of States.
On the transitional period, it was clear that it could be quick and radical, gradualistic, or very long, and Ms. Ize-Charrin thought that because the Office also needed time to grow, there was no other possibility than the gradualistic approach, which was the most reasonable and the most effective approach for preserving all the good work that had been done to date. She thanked the participants, noting that the Committee was the first body with which this dialogue had been held, and that the questions posed would be very useful, although Member States would have the last word. She pointed out that they would probably feel respect for the opinions expressed beforehand by the treaty body experts, NGOs, national instructions and other international organizations. On how to commit more States to the reform process, Ms. Ize-Charrin mentioned the three pillars underlined by the Secretary-General: development, security, and human rights, all of which were necessary in order for the States to commit.
* *** *
This press release is not an official record and is provided for public information only.
of Racial Discrimination
18 August 2005
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning continued its discussion on treaty body reform, speaking with María-Francisca Ize-Charrin, Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Chief of the Treaties and Commission Branch of the Office. The discussion will be continued at a future session.
Introducing the current situation of the discussion, Committee Expert Linos Alexandre Sicilianos said the first element that had been covered in the previous debate was that any reform of the system should strengthen it, and not weaken it; and that the problem of racial discrimination should be put into focus and highlighted, as it was a problem being faced by most societies and should not be diluted in any reform. Regarding the objectives of such reform, the Committee agreed with the main objectives to strengthen the system, and to bring about a unification of methods of work, but the question was whether a unified treaty body was actually the most appropriate solution to the problems that had been identified by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the general feeling of the Committee on this subject had been quite sceptical.
Addressing the Committee, Ms. Ize-Charrin said the suggestion regarding the establishment of a so-called unified standing treaty body made by the High Commissioner in her Plan of Action represented a search for enhanced protection of groups and individuals at the national level and for greater efficiency of the treaty monitoring system. Any reform should be based on an acknowledgement of the qualities of the existing system, and a clear assessment of its advantages and shortcomings. The ultimate objective of any reform of the treaty body system had to be to enhance protection of rights-holders and efficiency of the treaty body monitoring system, and the pros and cons of a single body would need to be carefully assessed.
In the ensuing discussion, Experts raised various issues and topics, among others the legal aspects of the problem of reform in the context of the necessary changes to the various international conventions and the possible new optional protocol; the need for a unified body dealing with individual communications as this would give them a higher international visibility and thus not allow States to disregard them as was sometimes the case today; that one unified body might have less Experts, with concomitant less expertise, and recommendations issuing from that body might be less useful; and the issue of potential marginalisation or, conversely, inversed prominence, that could be given to the issues that were now given undivided attention under the current system.
Concluding, Ms. Ize-Charrin said the process was still at the starting phase and the dialogue with States had just begun. Many States had expressed interest in targeted reports. On whether an additional protocol was required, the opinion of all stakeholders, in particular the treaty body experts, would be crucial in this regard. Several Experts had referred to the estimates of costs of an eventual unified treaty system, and the issue would be dealt with in due time, as this was required in order to keep the reform’s feet on the ground. Because the Office also needed time to grow, there was no other possibility than the gradualistic approach to the reform process, which was the most reasonable and the most effective approach for preserving all the good work that had been done to date.
The next public meeting of the Committee will be held at 10 a.m. on Friday 19 August 2005, when the Committee will discuss its annual report to the General Assembly, issue its final releases on country reports considered during the session and close the session.
Discussion
LINOS ALEXANDRE SICILIANOS, Committee Expert, welcoming Ms. Ize-Charrin, said the first element that had been covered in the previous debate was that any reform of the system should strengthen it, and not weaken it; the problem of racial discrimination should be put into focus and highlighted, as it was a problem being faced by most societies and should not be diluted in any reform; in order to carry out any type of reform, there was a need for broad consultation with the treaty bodies, Member States, civil society, non-governmental organizations and national institutions which were playing a more and more important role. Regarding the objectives of such reform, the Committee agreed with the main objectives outlined by High Commissioner Louise Arbour, mainly to strengthen the system, and to bring about a unification of methods of work. The question was to know whether a unified treaty body was actually the most appropriate solution to the problems that had been identified by the High Commissioner. The general feeling of the members of the Committee on this subject had been quite sceptical for a number of reasons, including the possible marginalisation of certain instruments.
Regarding some of the proposals that the Committee had come up with, these included to continue with the approach related to a broadened report and targeted reports; the need to implement as quickly as possible the recommendations of the Presidents and Chairpersons of the different Committees in order to get results more rapidly; to follow the example of the Committee on Human Rights and create chambers or small bodies in order to absorb the back-log of consideration of reports; the issue of backlog of complaints and the need for a strengthening of this procedure through a special group dealing with individual complaints; the establishment of a unified body to deal with individual communications, thus bringing together the activities of the five Committees, and which in the end could enjoy greater visibility; the possibility of strengthening the follow-up procedures; and the need not to duplicate work between the future Human Rights Council and the treaty bodies and for them to work together and in complementarity so that the Council provided political support to the treaty bodies.
MARÍA-FRANCISCA IZE-CHARRIN, Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Chief of the Treaties and Commission Branch of the Office, said she was very pleased to see the interest in this discussion as expressed by all the Experts, and could not stress enough the fact that their contribution to the debate was absolutely crucial in order to achieve the best possible result in terms of improvement of the system. She had taken good note of the proposals for further action spelt out by Committee Expert Linos Alexandre Sicilianos at the previous discussion on the subject on 17 August 2005.
The suggestion regarding the establishment of a so-called unified standing treaty body made by the High Commissioner in her Plan of Action represented a search for enhanced protection of groups and individuals at the national level and for greater efficiency of the treaty monitoring system. Extensive consultations were necessary to look into the idea of a unified treaty body, and discuss possible options to attain a better implementation of the treaties. The opinion of all stakeholders would need to be sought in order to render this process as informed and participatory as possible, and, ultimately, to move towards decisions. No decision had been adopted yet, and the Committee, as well as other members of treaty bodies and all other stakeholders would be closely consulted at all stages of the process.
A concept paper would be developed in an open, participatory way, Ms. Ize-Charrin said. It had not yet even started to be drafted, and the Committee was among the very first to be consulted, as it was their experience, expertise and ideas which would help to study and identify relevant questions and the best options for the benefit of rights-holders. The Office was at the initial stages of identifying areas which would require in-depth examination in the process of developing the concept paper, and any expert advice would be welcomed. Colleagues in the Treaties and Commission Branch had selected various issues needing further study, among which were legal and procedural questions related to the establishment of a unified standing body; questions related to the possible modalities of such a body; and the role of stakeholders. Currently under examination were ways to ensure that all concerned could provide input into the process of drawing up the concept paper, and several ways had been envisaged to that effect. All of this would hopefully allow for the concept paper to be available in early 2006, and to circulate it for comments to all treaty body members and to other stakeholders such as academics and international experts, national human rights institutions and NGOs.
Ms. Ize-Charrin said the Committee’s fundamental concern that due attention might no longer be given to the crucial issue of racial discrimination if the monitoring of the Convention was entrusted to what was currently called a unified standing treaty body had been taken note of. This concern had to, and would, be addressed extremely seriously. The High Commissioner was fully committed to ensuring that any reform of the treaty body system would enhance the protection for all groups and individuals at the national level, in particular in areas as important as that of racial discrimination, which she had identified in her Plan of Action as one of the main human rights challenges.
It was clear for the Office, Ms. Ize-Charrin said, that any reform should be based on an acknowledgement of the qualities of the existing system, and a clear assessment of its advantages and shortcomings. The Office had been actively engaged in strengthening the implementation of treaty bodies’ recommendations through various projects. The need to strengthen further the follow-up to treaty body recommendations, as suggested by Mr. Sicilianos at the earlier meeting, could not be ignored, and nor could the view that the implementation of the recommendations of the chairpersons and inter-committee meetings should be enhanced. As for the need to clarify the relationship between treaty bodies and the future Human Rights Council, in order to avoid duplication, it was too early to get a complete picture of the outcome of the reform of the Commission on Human Rights.
Ms. Ize-Charrin concluded by emphasising the High Commissioner’s strong view that the ultimate objective of any reform of the treaty body system had to be to enhance protection of rights-holders and efficiency of the treaty body monitoring system, and the pros and cons of a single body would need to be carefully assessed.
Committee Experts then raised various issues and topics, including the legal aspects of the problem of reform in the context of the necessary changes to the various international conventions and the possible new optional protocol; the issue of support from States, as this was a big question-mark as to what would actually influence their position on a unified treaty body which could have an international jurisdiction in the area of human rights; the need to be realistic regarding the reform if this was tending towards the idea of a unified body, as technical elements might water down the initial idea as they would have to take into account the various political positions; whether the concept paper would set out an estimate of the envisaged unified treaty body system, and whether there would be an increase compared to current costs; the need for a unified body dealing with individual communications as this would give them a higher international visibility and thus not allow States to disregard them as was sometimes the case today; that the solution to reform was a structural one by creating one unified body was not necessarily the correct path to take as it might not necessarily provide a solution to existing problems; that one unified body might have less Experts, with concomitant less expertise, and recommendations issuing from that body might be less useful; and the issue of potential marginalisation or, conversely, inversed prominence, that could be given to the issues that were now given undivided attention under the current system.
In concluding remarks, Ms. Ize-Charrin said being realistic, she could not provide an answer to all the questions and issues raised, although these would be kept on the list of the issues to be kept in mind during the reform process. Regarding the importance of the political aspect, which was raised by several Experts, this was obviously crucial in the work, although the process was still at the starting phase and the dialogue with States had just begun. Many States had expressed interest in targeted reports. On the issue of NGOs, they were very interested in being consulted in the process, although they did not yet seem to have a cohesive and coherent point of view. On whether an additional protocol was required, the opinion of all stakeholders, in particular treaty body experts, would be crucial in this regard.
Several Experts had referred to the estimates of costs of an eventual unified treaty system, and the issue would be dealt with in due time, as this was required in order to keep the reform’s feet on the ground. Regarding the fact that the process would be based on continued dialogue, there was strong commitment for this in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. With regard to the issue of coordination at the national level, this was a shared concern, and the problem existed whatever the size of the country, as coordination was the largest problem. On the problem of resources, there was a new commitment from States parties with regard to the regular budget of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and this should be doubled within five years as per commitments of States.
On the transitional period, it was clear that it could be quick and radical, gradualistic, or very long, and Ms. Ize-Charrin thought that because the Office also needed time to grow, there was no other possibility than the gradualistic approach, which was the most reasonable and the most effective approach for preserving all the good work that had been done to date. She thanked the participants, noting that the Committee was the first body with which this dialogue had been held, and that the questions posed would be very useful, although Member States would have the last word. She pointed out that they would probably feel respect for the opinions expressed beforehand by the treaty body experts, NGOs, national instructions and other international organizations. On how to commit more States to the reform process, Ms. Ize-Charrin mentioned the three pillars underlined by the Secretary-General: development, security, and human rights, all of which were necessary in order for the States to commit.
* *** *
This press release is not an official record and is provided for public information only.
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: