Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION DISCUSSES WORKING METHODS
13 August 2007
Share
Committee on Elimination
of Racial Discrimination
13 August 2007
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this afternoon discussed its working methods, in particular with regard to the list of issues that was addressed to States parties.
In a brief introduction, Committee Chairperson Régis de Gouttes noted that the current practice was that each country Rapporteur, in cooperation with the Secretariat, prepared a list of issues, which were addressed to the State party one month before the beginning of the session at which their report was to be considered. That meant that States received the list of issues too late in order to submit timely written replies. It was hoped that the methods could be improved in two regards: both in terms of the Committee’s oversight of the list, and in ensuring timely replies by States to the issues.
Committee Expert Morten Kjaerum, presenting a note on a revised procedure for the elaboration of the list of issues regarding the consideration of initial and periodic reports, highlighted the fact that the list of issues really did play an important role in deepening the discussions in the context of country presentations. The basic change suggested in the note was that country rapporteurs be appointed a session before the list of issues was adopted, that the list of issues for a given State party be adopted at the session prior to the examination of that State party's report, and that the list be sent to States parties three months before the presentation of their reports. In other words, country rapporteurs would be appointed 12 months before the examination of the State party report, instead of six months, as was the current practice, and the list would be sent three months before, instead of one month. The advantage of that was that the States parties would have a longer period to elaborate their answers to questions raised. In addition, it was suggested that the list of issues become an official document, and be translated into the working languages of the Committee.
One issue that needed discussion was how the list of issues would be adopted, Mr. Kjaerum said. The note contained three options: adoption in plenary; adoption by a working group established for that purpose; or adoption by mandating country rapporteurs to do so themselves. The new procedure represented a minimal change, but it would have a real advantage for the Committee's work, allowing for an enhanced dialogue and the avoidance of duplication, he added.
Mr. de Gouttes noted that the proposal before the Committee followed the procedure that was being practised by other human rights treaty bodies. It also addressed very real complaints that had been made by States parties, first, that they did not have enough time to reply to the list of issues and, second, that they were unsure to what degree the list of issues reflected the concerns of the Committee as a whole.
In the ensuing debate, a number of Experts supported the new timeline for processing of lists of issues, while others felt that it would create too great a scheduling burden on the secretariat. That latter group suggested that time could be saved by appointing country rapporteurs at the beginning of the Committee's session, rather than the end; in addition, a time limit for the submission of the list of issues to State parties could be set at two months before the presentation, and the countries could be given one month to reply. The majority of Experts were concerned that adoption of the issues in plenary would be an additional burden on the Committee, which already had a backlog of work; they therefore supported continuing the practice of mandating the country rapporteur to elaborate a list of issues on behalf of the Committee.
When the Committee reconvenes on Tuesday, 14 August, at 10 a.m., it is scheduled to continue its first reading of revised guidelines for the submission of specific reports presented by States parties under article 9 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
of Racial Discrimination
13 August 2007
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this afternoon discussed its working methods, in particular with regard to the list of issues that was addressed to States parties.
In a brief introduction, Committee Chairperson Régis de Gouttes noted that the current practice was that each country Rapporteur, in cooperation with the Secretariat, prepared a list of issues, which were addressed to the State party one month before the beginning of the session at which their report was to be considered. That meant that States received the list of issues too late in order to submit timely written replies. It was hoped that the methods could be improved in two regards: both in terms of the Committee’s oversight of the list, and in ensuring timely replies by States to the issues.
Committee Expert Morten Kjaerum, presenting a note on a revised procedure for the elaboration of the list of issues regarding the consideration of initial and periodic reports, highlighted the fact that the list of issues really did play an important role in deepening the discussions in the context of country presentations. The basic change suggested in the note was that country rapporteurs be appointed a session before the list of issues was adopted, that the list of issues for a given State party be adopted at the session prior to the examination of that State party's report, and that the list be sent to States parties three months before the presentation of their reports. In other words, country rapporteurs would be appointed 12 months before the examination of the State party report, instead of six months, as was the current practice, and the list would be sent three months before, instead of one month. The advantage of that was that the States parties would have a longer period to elaborate their answers to questions raised. In addition, it was suggested that the list of issues become an official document, and be translated into the working languages of the Committee.
One issue that needed discussion was how the list of issues would be adopted, Mr. Kjaerum said. The note contained three options: adoption in plenary; adoption by a working group established for that purpose; or adoption by mandating country rapporteurs to do so themselves. The new procedure represented a minimal change, but it would have a real advantage for the Committee's work, allowing for an enhanced dialogue and the avoidance of duplication, he added.
Mr. de Gouttes noted that the proposal before the Committee followed the procedure that was being practised by other human rights treaty bodies. It also addressed very real complaints that had been made by States parties, first, that they did not have enough time to reply to the list of issues and, second, that they were unsure to what degree the list of issues reflected the concerns of the Committee as a whole.
In the ensuing debate, a number of Experts supported the new timeline for processing of lists of issues, while others felt that it would create too great a scheduling burden on the secretariat. That latter group suggested that time could be saved by appointing country rapporteurs at the beginning of the Committee's session, rather than the end; in addition, a time limit for the submission of the list of issues to State parties could be set at two months before the presentation, and the countries could be given one month to reply. The majority of Experts were concerned that adoption of the issues in plenary would be an additional burden on the Committee, which already had a backlog of work; they therefore supported continuing the practice of mandating the country rapporteur to elaborate a list of issues on behalf of the Committee.
When the Committee reconvenes on Tuesday, 14 August, at 10 a.m., it is scheduled to continue its first reading of revised guidelines for the submission of specific reports presented by States parties under article 9 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: