Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
30 October 2000
Share
Human Rights Committee
70th session
30 October 2000
Afternoon
The Human Rights Committee this afternoon held an informal meeting at the Palais des Nations with States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aimed at improving the country reporting process and avoiding duplication of the work of the six human rights treaty bodies.
At the beginning of the meeting, Committee Chairperson Cecilia Medina Quiroga recalled that the Committee monitored the implementation of the Covenant through its consideration of country reports and through its examination of individual communications. The Committee also periodically issued general comments on various articles of the Covenant to assist States parties to better fulfil their obligations in implementing the provisions of the Covenant; and it also made available to States parties guidelines to improve their reporting systems.
During the exchange of views, several speakers raised the issue of duplication of work and overlapping of mandates of the various human rights treaty bodies. One State representative remarked that the Human Rights Committee had the mandate to monitor in part child rights and gender equality, which were the mandates of the Committees on the Rights of the Child and Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, respectively.
Many speakers noted the lack of resources to provide advisory and technical assistance to States parties. The effect of the Committee's lack of adequate financing on its monitoring role was also raised.
To date, 148 States parties have ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In addition, 95 States parties have ratified the Optional Protocol to the Covenant recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive communications from individuals claiming to be victims of a violation by their respective States parties of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant.
Representatives of the following States parties participated in the discussion: New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, Canada, India, Egypt, Chile, France, Italy, Algeria, the United Kingdom, the United States, Finland, and Germany.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 31 October, at the Palais Wilson, it will discuss draft general comments.
Discussion
At the beginning of the meeting, Committee Chairperson Cecilia Medina Quiroga said that since the Committee had been set up, it had been monitoring the full implementation of the Covenant. It had also developed working methods in order to facilitate its consideration of States parties reports and to assist them in their reporting obligations. Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stressed the States parties' obligation to submit periodic reports to the Committee on their efforts to implement the provisions of the treaty.
On many occasions, the Committee had issued reporting guidelines in order to assist the States parties in their reporting efforts, Ms. Quiroga said. The Committee had also adopted general comments on different articles of the Covenant designed to facilitate the better implementation of the provisions of the instrument. The concluding observations and recommendations which the Committee issued at the end of the consideration of each report by a State party enhanced the implementation of the Covenant. The Committee had also been examining individual complaints under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
She said that on ratifying the Covenant, States parties became obligated to implement the provisions of the treaty and to report to the Committee on their different activities pertaining to the Covenant. Today's discussion would elucidate some of the problems encountered by States parties in preparing their reports and how to solve them.
Article 40 of the Covenant states that States parties are committed to present periodic reports on the measures they had taken to give effect to the rights provided under the Covenant, and the progress achieved in the enjoyment of those rights. In addition, the Covenant says one year after the entry into force of the Covenant, concerned States parties should send reports to the Committee and henceforth whenever they are requested to do so by the Committee.
Following the brief introductory statement by the Chairperson, several representatives of States parties took the floor to give their views on current difficulties with, and possible solutions to, the country reporting process, which includes reports; the oral presentation process; concluding observations and follow-up; the role of international reporting for the improvement of domestic human rights; and the role of non-governmental organizations. The first topic also includes the consideration of the situation of human rights in a State that has not presented a report; and the consideration of the report of a State without a Government delegation.
Over the course of the discussion, some representatives said this meeting was essential in many ways. States parties were aware of the need to avoid duplication in the consideration of reports by the different treaty bodies. Improved coordination and better consolidation of the country reports should be stressed. In addition, rationalization of the work of the various Committees was encouraged by some speakers.
The problem of the reporting process was closely related to the lack of financial resources and secretarial staff, one State representative said. The need to make available advisory and technical assistance to all reporting States parties was stressed.
On the issue of minimizing duplication and overlap with other treaty bodies in reporting and consideration of reports, a Committee expert said States parties faced the burden of preparing reports to the six treaty bodies and had to send delegations to the committees. Under that topic, identification of areas of overlapping in instruments and mandates was discussed. A representative underlined that there was an overlapping of mandates by the various treaty bodies; for instance, the mandate of the Human Rights Committee dealt in part with the rights of children and equality between women and men, which were excusive areas of the Committees on the Rights of the Child and the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Speakers also underlined areas in which the Human Rights Committee could work together with other treaty bodies to identify and achieve useful practical improvements to systematic problems affecting all treaty bodies. Many speakers noted that the annual meeting of the Chairpersons of the treaty bodies was to identify areas of overlapping and duplication among the various mandates. The need to create sub-committees and working groups to examine the situation of duplication was a further workload and would be a financial burden to the UN system.
Concerning communications, a Committee expert said that the Committee had been receiving individual complaints from at least 65 States parties to the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The fact that it was receiving only from 65 of the 95 States parties did not mean that human rights were not violated in the remaining 30 States parties. However, from the periodic reports received from those countries, there had been indications that the Optional Protocol was not made known to citizens so that they could use it in the event of violations of their rights provided under the Covenant.
Another point indicated by the Committee experts was the lack of adequate personnel to process communications and correspondence from individuals seeking redress. In 1995, at least five persons used to process communications, now only one person was doing the same job. At the same time, the number of States parties to the Optional Protocol had increased. In 1999 alone, the Committee had received 1,741 communications and correspondence which needed timely processing.
On the question of better resources, a Committee expert said that the six treaty bodies were run on a $ 6 million budget which was made available by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The work of the Human Rights Committee was run by a handful professionals and the lack of personnel had restrained the actions of the Committee. For example, the experts of the European Human Rights Commission were assisted by 120 permanent professionals while the Inter-American Human Rights Commission had 28 jurists at its disposal.
In conclusion, the Chairperson said that the role of promoting civil and political rights was the responsibility of States parties and that they should continue to discharge their obligations.
* *** *
70th session
30 October 2000
Afternoon
The Human Rights Committee this afternoon held an informal meeting at the Palais des Nations with States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aimed at improving the country reporting process and avoiding duplication of the work of the six human rights treaty bodies.
At the beginning of the meeting, Committee Chairperson Cecilia Medina Quiroga recalled that the Committee monitored the implementation of the Covenant through its consideration of country reports and through its examination of individual communications. The Committee also periodically issued general comments on various articles of the Covenant to assist States parties to better fulfil their obligations in implementing the provisions of the Covenant; and it also made available to States parties guidelines to improve their reporting systems.
During the exchange of views, several speakers raised the issue of duplication of work and overlapping of mandates of the various human rights treaty bodies. One State representative remarked that the Human Rights Committee had the mandate to monitor in part child rights and gender equality, which were the mandates of the Committees on the Rights of the Child and Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, respectively.
Many speakers noted the lack of resources to provide advisory and technical assistance to States parties. The effect of the Committee's lack of adequate financing on its monitoring role was also raised.
To date, 148 States parties have ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In addition, 95 States parties have ratified the Optional Protocol to the Covenant recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive communications from individuals claiming to be victims of a violation by their respective States parties of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant.
Representatives of the following States parties participated in the discussion: New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, Canada, India, Egypt, Chile, France, Italy, Algeria, the United Kingdom, the United States, Finland, and Germany.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 31 October, at the Palais Wilson, it will discuss draft general comments.
Discussion
At the beginning of the meeting, Committee Chairperson Cecilia Medina Quiroga said that since the Committee had been set up, it had been monitoring the full implementation of the Covenant. It had also developed working methods in order to facilitate its consideration of States parties reports and to assist them in their reporting obligations. Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stressed the States parties' obligation to submit periodic reports to the Committee on their efforts to implement the provisions of the treaty.
On many occasions, the Committee had issued reporting guidelines in order to assist the States parties in their reporting efforts, Ms. Quiroga said. The Committee had also adopted general comments on different articles of the Covenant designed to facilitate the better implementation of the provisions of the instrument. The concluding observations and recommendations which the Committee issued at the end of the consideration of each report by a State party enhanced the implementation of the Covenant. The Committee had also been examining individual complaints under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
She said that on ratifying the Covenant, States parties became obligated to implement the provisions of the treaty and to report to the Committee on their different activities pertaining to the Covenant. Today's discussion would elucidate some of the problems encountered by States parties in preparing their reports and how to solve them.
Article 40 of the Covenant states that States parties are committed to present periodic reports on the measures they had taken to give effect to the rights provided under the Covenant, and the progress achieved in the enjoyment of those rights. In addition, the Covenant says one year after the entry into force of the Covenant, concerned States parties should send reports to the Committee and henceforth whenever they are requested to do so by the Committee.
Following the brief introductory statement by the Chairperson, several representatives of States parties took the floor to give their views on current difficulties with, and possible solutions to, the country reporting process, which includes reports; the oral presentation process; concluding observations and follow-up; the role of international reporting for the improvement of domestic human rights; and the role of non-governmental organizations. The first topic also includes the consideration of the situation of human rights in a State that has not presented a report; and the consideration of the report of a State without a Government delegation.
Over the course of the discussion, some representatives said this meeting was essential in many ways. States parties were aware of the need to avoid duplication in the consideration of reports by the different treaty bodies. Improved coordination and better consolidation of the country reports should be stressed. In addition, rationalization of the work of the various Committees was encouraged by some speakers.
The problem of the reporting process was closely related to the lack of financial resources and secretarial staff, one State representative said. The need to make available advisory and technical assistance to all reporting States parties was stressed.
On the issue of minimizing duplication and overlap with other treaty bodies in reporting and consideration of reports, a Committee expert said States parties faced the burden of preparing reports to the six treaty bodies and had to send delegations to the committees. Under that topic, identification of areas of overlapping in instruments and mandates was discussed. A representative underlined that there was an overlapping of mandates by the various treaty bodies; for instance, the mandate of the Human Rights Committee dealt in part with the rights of children and equality between women and men, which were excusive areas of the Committees on the Rights of the Child and the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Speakers also underlined areas in which the Human Rights Committee could work together with other treaty bodies to identify and achieve useful practical improvements to systematic problems affecting all treaty bodies. Many speakers noted that the annual meeting of the Chairpersons of the treaty bodies was to identify areas of overlapping and duplication among the various mandates. The need to create sub-committees and working groups to examine the situation of duplication was a further workload and would be a financial burden to the UN system.
Concerning communications, a Committee expert said that the Committee had been receiving individual complaints from at least 65 States parties to the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The fact that it was receiving only from 65 of the 95 States parties did not mean that human rights were not violated in the remaining 30 States parties. However, from the periodic reports received from those countries, there had been indications that the Optional Protocol was not made known to citizens so that they could use it in the event of violations of their rights provided under the Covenant.
Another point indicated by the Committee experts was the lack of adequate personnel to process communications and correspondence from individuals seeking redress. In 1995, at least five persons used to process communications, now only one person was doing the same job. At the same time, the number of States parties to the Optional Protocol had increased. In 1999 alone, the Committee had received 1,741 communications and correspondence which needed timely processing.
On the question of better resources, a Committee expert said that the six treaty bodies were run on a $ 6 million budget which was made available by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The work of the Human Rights Committee was run by a handful professionals and the lack of personnel had restrained the actions of the Committee. For example, the experts of the European Human Rights Commission were assisted by 120 permanent professionals while the Inter-American Human Rights Commission had 28 jurists at its disposal.
In conclusion, the Chairperson said that the role of promoting civil and political rights was the responsibility of States parties and that they should continue to discharge their obligations.
* *** *