Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE HOLDS THIRD MEETING WITH STATES PARTIES TO CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS COVENANT
28 October 2004
Share
Human Rights Committee
28 October 2004
The Human Rights Committee held its third informal meeting today with States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The meeting focused on the procedures for the submission of reports, requests for interim measures of protection, follow up on concluding observations issued by the Committee and the Committee’s follow-up procedure on views under the Optional Protocol.
In opening remarks, Committee Chairperson Abdelfattah Amor said the discussion would examine the measures taken at making the Covenant and its Optional Protocols more universal, stronger and better clarified. The Chairperson noted that at present there were 153 States to the Covenant and 104 States Parties had ratified the First Optional Protocol on communications. He added that States parties had expressed growing interest in this protocol with the view of protecting the victims addressed in the communications.
While addressing the issue of procedures for submitting reports, Committee Expert Rafael Rivas Posada recalled that States parties were obligated to report to the Committee on their implementation of the principles of the Covenant, adding that those reports were of paramount importance to the work of the Committee. Given the delays by some States parties in submitting their reports, the Committee had adopted new rules to enable it to review the situation of human rights in States parties in the absence of reports.
Committee Expert Martin Scheinin addressed the issue of interim measures of protection which allowed the Committee to review cases and to inform a State of its views as to whether interim measures may be desirable to avoid irreparable damage to the victim of the alleged violation. All in all, seven countries had been subjected to this rule and an eighth case was currently being reviewed. The Expert appealed to States parties to have a sense of cooperative responsibility on respecting interim measures of protection.
Committee Expert Maxwell Yalden spoke of the methods of following-up on concluding observations to States parties’ reports. He noted that in March 2001, the Committee had introduced a new procedure requesting States parties to submit additional information on substantive points which the Committee deemed could not wait for an additional period of four or so years for the next State party report to be submitted. Experience had been very positive under this procedure and States parties had been very cooperative on nearly all occasions.
Speaking on the issue of the follow-up procedure on the views under the Optional Protocol was Committee Expert Nisuke Ando who noted that when the Committee began its activities in 1977, the issue of follow up on views under the Optional Protocol was not taken up seriously for the first 10 years. By acceding to the Optional Protocol, the State party chose to be subjected to the opinions of the Committee, and the response of each government reflected the human rights culture in the country.
Among the States parties’ delegates who participated in the discussion after the opening presentations were representatives of Azerbaijan, Mexico, Russia, Sweden and Switzerland. The questions and comments they raised addressed issues pertaining to the role of non-governmental organizations in the consideration of States parties' reports; technical cooperation for submitting reports; interim measures of protection; and disappeared persons.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 29 October, it will discuss the progress report of the Special Rapporteur for follow up on views of communications under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
Opening Statement by the Chairperson of the Committee
ABDELFATTAH AMOR, Chairperson of the Committee, said the discussion would examine the measures taken to make the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocols more universal, stronger and better clarified. As of today, 153 States had ratified the Covenant; the last to join were Timor Leste, Turkey, Swaziland and Liberia. The Chairperson noted that 104 States parties had ratified the first Optional Protocol on communications, adding that States parties had expressed growing interest in this protocol in view of protecting the victims addressed in the communications. The Committee received about 5,000 complaints each year and on average, it dealt with close to 100 communications. Mr. Amor added that only 53 States parties had ratified the Second Optional Protocol on the death penalty, most of whom no longer applied capital punishment.
The Chairperson noted that the examination of the situation of civil and political rights in a State party could now be carried out in the absence of a delegation which prompted States parties to ensure there was practically no delay in terms of submission of reports; however there were still some States, 19 in all, with more than a 10-year delay in the submission of their reports.
Concerning communications, as per a general comment of the Committee, a procedure existed which allowed the State party to be involved in discussing communications whereby the States parties as well as non-governmental organizations could comment on the Committee’s deliberations. Moreover, the follow up procedure to concluding observations was being further clarified and developed, Mr. Amor said.
Presentations
RAFAEL RIVAS POSADA, Committee Expert, drew attention to the procedure for the submission of reports and delays in the presentation of reports. As per article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, States parties were obligated to report to the Committee on their implementation of the principles of the Covenant. The reports were of paramount importance to the work of the Committee whose mandate revolved around the situation of human rights in the State parties. Basically, the Committee was a monitoring and studying body which provided a possibility through its recommendations and comments to improve and enhance situations that might occur in violation of the Covenant. If a State party did not fulfil its obligation to submit a report, the work of the Committee became more difficult.
With regard to the submission of reports, as of today there were 153 States parties which had ratified the Covenant and 95 States parties which were late in submitting their reports; of these, 35 had a delay of more than five years; and of these 35, another 20 had yet to submit their initial reports. This situation had made the Committee adopt new rules to enable it to review the situation of human rights in States parties even if they had not submitted reports. This was by no means a punitive measure, Mr. Rivas Posada stated, but rather a means by which the Committee could assess the country situation in terms of civil and political rights. Many States parties had started to receive reminders that their situation of human rights could be examined even if their reports had not been submitted. In turn, there had been a considerable increase in requests for technical assistance.
MARTIN SCHEININ, Committee Expert, addressed the issue of interim measures of protection based on rule 92 of the edited rules of procedure. As per this practice a Committee member was appointed as Special Rapporteur to review related cases and to inform a State of the Committee's views as to whether interim measures may be desirable to avoid irreparable damage to the victim of the alleged violation. A point of concern was that often it was the case that no reasons were given for interim measures of protection by States parties after being requested to do so by the Committee. Generally, the State party concerned was not heard before the request was issued, however, occasionally there was a need to clarify the facts and in these situations the State party was in contact with the Committee beforehand. Mr. Scheinin added that there were possibilities for the State party to request to lift the measures of rule 92. In practice there were two major categories where such measures were requested; one involved capital punishment. All in all, seven countries had been subjected to rule 92 and an eighth case was currently being reviewed, Mr. Scheinin added. In closing, the Expert appealed to States parties to have a sense of cooperative responsibility on respecting interim measures of protection.
MAXWELL YALDEN, Committee Expert, spoke of the methods of following-up on concluding observations to States parties' reports. In March 2001, the Committee had introduced a new procedure requesting States parties to submit additional information on substantive points which it deemed could not wait for an additional period of four or so years for the next State party report to be submitted. Experience had been very positive under this procedure and States parties had been very cooperative on nearly all occasions. There had been 42 States parties which had come before the Committee since these procedures had been introduced.
Turning to the issue of emoluments of the Human Rights Committee, Mr. Yalden recalled the resolution passed in 2002 by the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations and then the General Assembly itself pertaining to the budget of the Human Rights Committee. The Committee would pursue the matter with the appropriate United Nations authority, Mr. Yalden stated.
NISUKE ANDO, Committee Expert, speaking on the issue of the follow-up procedure on the views under the Optional Protocol, noted that the Committee began its activities in 1977. During its first 10 years, the issue of follow up on views under the Optional Protocol was not taken up seriously. However, at the end of the Cold War, the Committee had become more cognizant of this issue, Mr. Ando said. When the Committee adopted a view, it first checked if it was admissible under the provisions of the Covenant. In the case of a violation, the Committee made recommendations of remedy to the State party and requested that the State party replied to the Committee within 90 days with information on how it was addressing the violation. While several States parties subjected to this mechanism had replied to the Committee, others had still not done so. The Committee had its own shortcomings, Mr. Ando said. For example, the Committee had no means of having a face-to-face dialogue with States parties when they made their case. By acceding to the Optional Protocol, the State party chose to be subjected to the opinions of the Committee. The response of each government reflected the human rights culture in the country, Mr. Ando added.
Discussion
Following the presentations by Committee Experts, representatives of several States parties took the floor to make observations and ask questions.
One representative questioned how the Committee accepted information received from non-governmental organizations and how it devised its list of issues prior to deliberations with States parties. A Committee Expert said there were no provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which dealt with receiving information from non-governmental organizations. The list of issues compiled reflected the situation on the ground in the respective country and the concerns. The Committee was well aware that at times a delegation was not briefed on certain issues raised by the Committee. The purpose of the dialogue was for the State party to provide information which was the basis for the Committee to form its observations. However, most of the information received in this manner was well known in the public domain, he added.
In response to a question, a Committee member said since many States were not parties to all the seven treaty bodies, the option of having one single report became difficult. She expressed the importance of coordination between treaty bodies and of the reporting procedures in general. The Secretary of the Committee added that reminders were sent out at least once a year to States parties whose reports were overdue by at least five years. In response to another question, the Secretary said some 30 per cent of States parties to international treaties had at one time or another requested technical assistance in submitting their reports.
Another State party representative suggested that the Committee should examine more closely the shortcomings of States parties in submitting reports. The delegate said her Government believed that shorter reports of better quality would be an improvement in this regard. She also highlighted the importance of having the concluding observations of the Committee disseminated to the general public.
In response to a question, the Chairperson noted that there had been some 12 communications submitted to the Committee which involved persons who had been held incommunicado or who had disappeared. There was an ongoing discussion on drawing up a treaty on disappeared persons and what treaty body should be responsible for this question. He recalled that there would be a meeting in January to examine the issue of creating a new international mechanism to address such matters.
Another representative noted that within the human rights bodies, certain members of Committees had made declarations on the situation in their country which were politically nuanced and had no direct relationship with the actual situation in the country. The speaker suggested that there should be a way to restrict these types of statements in order to create an atmosphere of cooperation. The Chairperson noted that although Committee Experts were nominated by their governments, each Expert acted in his or her independent capacity.
* *** *
28 October 2004
The Human Rights Committee held its third informal meeting today with States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The meeting focused on the procedures for the submission of reports, requests for interim measures of protection, follow up on concluding observations issued by the Committee and the Committee’s follow-up procedure on views under the Optional Protocol.
In opening remarks, Committee Chairperson Abdelfattah Amor said the discussion would examine the measures taken at making the Covenant and its Optional Protocols more universal, stronger and better clarified. The Chairperson noted that at present there were 153 States to the Covenant and 104 States Parties had ratified the First Optional Protocol on communications. He added that States parties had expressed growing interest in this protocol with the view of protecting the victims addressed in the communications.
While addressing the issue of procedures for submitting reports, Committee Expert Rafael Rivas Posada recalled that States parties were obligated to report to the Committee on their implementation of the principles of the Covenant, adding that those reports were of paramount importance to the work of the Committee. Given the delays by some States parties in submitting their reports, the Committee had adopted new rules to enable it to review the situation of human rights in States parties in the absence of reports.
Committee Expert Martin Scheinin addressed the issue of interim measures of protection which allowed the Committee to review cases and to inform a State of its views as to whether interim measures may be desirable to avoid irreparable damage to the victim of the alleged violation. All in all, seven countries had been subjected to this rule and an eighth case was currently being reviewed. The Expert appealed to States parties to have a sense of cooperative responsibility on respecting interim measures of protection.
Committee Expert Maxwell Yalden spoke of the methods of following-up on concluding observations to States parties’ reports. He noted that in March 2001, the Committee had introduced a new procedure requesting States parties to submit additional information on substantive points which the Committee deemed could not wait for an additional period of four or so years for the next State party report to be submitted. Experience had been very positive under this procedure and States parties had been very cooperative on nearly all occasions.
Speaking on the issue of the follow-up procedure on the views under the Optional Protocol was Committee Expert Nisuke Ando who noted that when the Committee began its activities in 1977, the issue of follow up on views under the Optional Protocol was not taken up seriously for the first 10 years. By acceding to the Optional Protocol, the State party chose to be subjected to the opinions of the Committee, and the response of each government reflected the human rights culture in the country.
Among the States parties’ delegates who participated in the discussion after the opening presentations were representatives of Azerbaijan, Mexico, Russia, Sweden and Switzerland. The questions and comments they raised addressed issues pertaining to the role of non-governmental organizations in the consideration of States parties' reports; technical cooperation for submitting reports; interim measures of protection; and disappeared persons.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 29 October, it will discuss the progress report of the Special Rapporteur for follow up on views of communications under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
Opening Statement by the Chairperson of the Committee
ABDELFATTAH AMOR, Chairperson of the Committee, said the discussion would examine the measures taken to make the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocols more universal, stronger and better clarified. As of today, 153 States had ratified the Covenant; the last to join were Timor Leste, Turkey, Swaziland and Liberia. The Chairperson noted that 104 States parties had ratified the first Optional Protocol on communications, adding that States parties had expressed growing interest in this protocol in view of protecting the victims addressed in the communications. The Committee received about 5,000 complaints each year and on average, it dealt with close to 100 communications. Mr. Amor added that only 53 States parties had ratified the Second Optional Protocol on the death penalty, most of whom no longer applied capital punishment.
The Chairperson noted that the examination of the situation of civil and political rights in a State party could now be carried out in the absence of a delegation which prompted States parties to ensure there was practically no delay in terms of submission of reports; however there were still some States, 19 in all, with more than a 10-year delay in the submission of their reports.
Concerning communications, as per a general comment of the Committee, a procedure existed which allowed the State party to be involved in discussing communications whereby the States parties as well as non-governmental organizations could comment on the Committee’s deliberations. Moreover, the follow up procedure to concluding observations was being further clarified and developed, Mr. Amor said.
Presentations
RAFAEL RIVAS POSADA, Committee Expert, drew attention to the procedure for the submission of reports and delays in the presentation of reports. As per article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, States parties were obligated to report to the Committee on their implementation of the principles of the Covenant. The reports were of paramount importance to the work of the Committee whose mandate revolved around the situation of human rights in the State parties. Basically, the Committee was a monitoring and studying body which provided a possibility through its recommendations and comments to improve and enhance situations that might occur in violation of the Covenant. If a State party did not fulfil its obligation to submit a report, the work of the Committee became more difficult.
With regard to the submission of reports, as of today there were 153 States parties which had ratified the Covenant and 95 States parties which were late in submitting their reports; of these, 35 had a delay of more than five years; and of these 35, another 20 had yet to submit their initial reports. This situation had made the Committee adopt new rules to enable it to review the situation of human rights in States parties even if they had not submitted reports. This was by no means a punitive measure, Mr. Rivas Posada stated, but rather a means by which the Committee could assess the country situation in terms of civil and political rights. Many States parties had started to receive reminders that their situation of human rights could be examined even if their reports had not been submitted. In turn, there had been a considerable increase in requests for technical assistance.
MARTIN SCHEININ, Committee Expert, addressed the issue of interim measures of protection based on rule 92 of the edited rules of procedure. As per this practice a Committee member was appointed as Special Rapporteur to review related cases and to inform a State of the Committee's views as to whether interim measures may be desirable to avoid irreparable damage to the victim of the alleged violation. A point of concern was that often it was the case that no reasons were given for interim measures of protection by States parties after being requested to do so by the Committee. Generally, the State party concerned was not heard before the request was issued, however, occasionally there was a need to clarify the facts and in these situations the State party was in contact with the Committee beforehand. Mr. Scheinin added that there were possibilities for the State party to request to lift the measures of rule 92. In practice there were two major categories where such measures were requested; one involved capital punishment. All in all, seven countries had been subjected to rule 92 and an eighth case was currently being reviewed, Mr. Scheinin added. In closing, the Expert appealed to States parties to have a sense of cooperative responsibility on respecting interim measures of protection.
MAXWELL YALDEN, Committee Expert, spoke of the methods of following-up on concluding observations to States parties' reports. In March 2001, the Committee had introduced a new procedure requesting States parties to submit additional information on substantive points which it deemed could not wait for an additional period of four or so years for the next State party report to be submitted. Experience had been very positive under this procedure and States parties had been very cooperative on nearly all occasions. There had been 42 States parties which had come before the Committee since these procedures had been introduced.
Turning to the issue of emoluments of the Human Rights Committee, Mr. Yalden recalled the resolution passed in 2002 by the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations and then the General Assembly itself pertaining to the budget of the Human Rights Committee. The Committee would pursue the matter with the appropriate United Nations authority, Mr. Yalden stated.
NISUKE ANDO, Committee Expert, speaking on the issue of the follow-up procedure on the views under the Optional Protocol, noted that the Committee began its activities in 1977. During its first 10 years, the issue of follow up on views under the Optional Protocol was not taken up seriously. However, at the end of the Cold War, the Committee had become more cognizant of this issue, Mr. Ando said. When the Committee adopted a view, it first checked if it was admissible under the provisions of the Covenant. In the case of a violation, the Committee made recommendations of remedy to the State party and requested that the State party replied to the Committee within 90 days with information on how it was addressing the violation. While several States parties subjected to this mechanism had replied to the Committee, others had still not done so. The Committee had its own shortcomings, Mr. Ando said. For example, the Committee had no means of having a face-to-face dialogue with States parties when they made their case. By acceding to the Optional Protocol, the State party chose to be subjected to the opinions of the Committee. The response of each government reflected the human rights culture in the country, Mr. Ando added.
Discussion
Following the presentations by Committee Experts, representatives of several States parties took the floor to make observations and ask questions.
One representative questioned how the Committee accepted information received from non-governmental organizations and how it devised its list of issues prior to deliberations with States parties. A Committee Expert said there were no provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which dealt with receiving information from non-governmental organizations. The list of issues compiled reflected the situation on the ground in the respective country and the concerns. The Committee was well aware that at times a delegation was not briefed on certain issues raised by the Committee. The purpose of the dialogue was for the State party to provide information which was the basis for the Committee to form its observations. However, most of the information received in this manner was well known in the public domain, he added.
In response to a question, a Committee member said since many States were not parties to all the seven treaty bodies, the option of having one single report became difficult. She expressed the importance of coordination between treaty bodies and of the reporting procedures in general. The Secretary of the Committee added that reminders were sent out at least once a year to States parties whose reports were overdue by at least five years. In response to another question, the Secretary said some 30 per cent of States parties to international treaties had at one time or another requested technical assistance in submitting their reports.
Another State party representative suggested that the Committee should examine more closely the shortcomings of States parties in submitting reports. The delegate said her Government believed that shorter reports of better quality would be an improvement in this regard. She also highlighted the importance of having the concluding observations of the Committee disseminated to the general public.
In response to a question, the Chairperson noted that there had been some 12 communications submitted to the Committee which involved persons who had been held incommunicado or who had disappeared. There was an ongoing discussion on drawing up a treaty on disappeared persons and what treaty body should be responsible for this question. He recalled that there would be a meeting in January to examine the issue of creating a new international mechanism to address such matters.
Another representative noted that within the human rights bodies, certain members of Committees had made declarations on the situation in their country which were politically nuanced and had no direct relationship with the actual situation in the country. The speaker suggested that there should be a way to restrict these types of statements in order to create an atmosphere of cooperation. The Chairperson noted that although Committee Experts were nominated by their governments, each Expert acted in his or her independent capacity.
* *** *
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: