Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE MEETS WITH STATES PARTIES TO DISCUSS WAYS TO IMPROVE WORKING METHODS AND COOPERATION
23 July 2009
Share
Human Rights Committee
23 July 2009
This afternoon the Human Rights Committee met with States Parties, holding an interactive dialogue on the Committee’s working methods and possibilities for improving cooperation with States Parties.
Committee Members informed States Parties about the upcoming General Comment on freedom of expression; the status of submission of reports from State Parties, 90 of which were late; the working of the procedure under the Optional Protocol concerning individual cases; the follow-up procedure on country reports; Committee views and concerns regarding cooperation with the Universal Periodic Review process; and measures to enhance cooperation with States Parties.
In the ensuing discussion, countries raised issues such as the harmonization of working methods with other treaty bodies, which would lighten the burden of reporting for States. The complementarity of the work of the Human Rights Committee with the Universal Periodic Review was underlined by several countries. Opinions about the degree of collaboration with the Human Rights Council were divided among States: some speakers stressed the different nature of the bodies and others underlined the usefulness of joint efforts for the implementation of recommendations. Some speakers called for more transparency in the argumentation of the concluding remarks and asked for the publication of the comments by States, as was done for the Universal Periodic Review. The sharing of information provided by non-governmental organizations to the Committee would support countries’ efforts in the preparation of the report, some speakers thought.
Representatives of the following countries took part in the discussion: France, Azerbaijan, Algeria, Liechtenstein, Sri Lanka, United States, Mexico, Indonesia, Denmark, Syria, Japan, Sweden, Canada, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, Nigeria, Ghana, Tanzania, Argentina, Chad, Switzerland, Botswana and Romania.
The Committee will hold its next public meeting on Monday, 27 June at 3 p.m., when it will hear a briefing by a representative of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on human rights indicators and hold a dialogue with a representative of the Inter-Parliamentary Union on follow-up to concluding observations.
Statements
YUJI IWASAWA, Chairman of the Human Rights Committee, said that the Committee was constantly improving its methods in order to enhance its dialogue with State Parties. Nearly 100 new communications were registered each year. To date, 112 States Parties had ratified the Optional Protocol on Communications. Since 2006, two new General Comments had been adopted. The next General Comment would deal with the Freedom of Expression. A first draft would be read at the next session of the Committee, as well as a first draft of the new reporting guidelines.
ABDELFATTAH AMOR, Committee Member, presenting the status of submission of reports, said that 90 States were late in submitting their reports and some States had not yet submitted their initial reports which were due. The delays were anywhere from 3 months to 24 years, in the worst case. That situation was not a normal one. In order to encourage States, the rules of procedure provided for the possibility to consider the human rights situation within a State without the report. That had so far been applied to 11 States and the results were encouraging.
NIGEL RODLEY, Committee Member, presented the situation of follow-up under the guidance of the Special Rapporteur on follow-up on Concluding Observations. The aim was to continue the dialogue with the countries examined. The Committee appreciated receiving a follow-up on three or four issues that were at the centre of attention during the examination within 12 months. Sometimes those follow-up responses did not come in, and the Committee had now established a procedure to remind States Parties of their request. Where the information provided was not satisfactory, the Committee would respond to the country. The follow-up procedure stopped when the next periodic report was due.
RUTH WEDGWOOD, Committee Member, presented the cases dealt with under the Optional Protocol by the Committee. If a country had signed up to this Optional Protocol, any person of that country could bring their individual cases alleging violations of the Covenant before the Committee. After a first screening, cases were brought before the plenary where the plausibility and the merits were discussed. If a violation were found, the Committee tried to frame a remedy and sent that suggestion to the State Party. Ms. Wedgwood was surprised how many countries did not follow-up on the Committee’s recommendations. That was sometimes due to federalism or bureaucracy, but sometimes also due to countries’ doubts about the Committee’s interpretation of the Covenant. She encouraged States to trust the Committee’s judgment and follow its suggestions.
CHRISTINE CHANET, Committee Member, said that the Universal Periodic Review was very helpful as it served to call attention to the all human rights treaties, including the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Given the universal nature of the Universal Periodic Review, the Committee thought that it might help to look at ways to benefit more from it. The follow-up mechanism to the Universal Periodic Review was also very interesting. The mechanism in the Universal Periodic Review by which States could publicly reject recommendations would be problematic for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Another problem would be the confusion that could arise from the Universal Periodic Review and the work of treaty bodies.
IULIA ANTOANELLA MOTOC, Committee Member, said there had been great progress since the last meeting with States Parties three years ago. She suggested establishing a focal point for contact with States Parties. Sometime States Parties did not respond because there were legal issues, they did not have the means or did not know how to go about it. In order to respond to States Parties’ needs, it would be important to have a focal point within the Committee. Another recommendation was to establish better contact between States and non-governmental organizations in publishing the information provided by the non-governmental organizations on the Internet so that States could easily access it.
Interactive Dialogue with States Parties
France said that surely in this Committee as well there were translation issues. It was important to harmonize the Committee’s procedure with other treaty bodies, as that would be helpful for States to comply with the reporting obligations. As to the Universal Periodic Review, of course both mechanisms were complimentary. It would be helpful if the respective mechanisms, the Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Periodic Review, would highlight their most important recommendations.
Azerbaijan said that more respect should be paid by the Committee to the reporting obligations of very small permanent missions. Azerbaijan had to submit seven reports this year, including a report for the Universal Periodic Review, which was clearly too much for such a small permanent mission. It was absolutely vital that treaty bodies harmonized their working methods.
Algeria said that (i.e. too many reports) was the reason why so many countries had not submitted their reports. It was helpful to exchange views and a focal point in the Committee could be useful as well. When the Committee itemized the shortcomings in human rights protection in a certain country it was important to provide some explanation or justification for that judgment. It was also regretted that there was no possibility to publish a country’s answers to the Committee’s concluding observations together with the concluding observations, as was the case with the Universal Periodic Review.
Liechtenstein asked whether the Committee would now highlight the most important recommendations for each and every country. What kind of criteria did the Committee intend to apply to determine which recommendation was a priority? In the implementation, the time factor played a role and Liechtenstein asked how the highlighting of certain recommendation would affect the time frame for implementation.
Sri Lanka said that Sri Lanka’s late submission was due to revisions that had to be made to the report. Sri Lanka attached great importance to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and was looking forward to its next engagement with the Committee.
The United States that it was supporting the Human Rights Committee to increase its dialogue with States Parties that were not collaborating with the Committee. Better coordination between treaty bodies was needed so that the same country did not have to submit reports to several Committees at the same time. The United States also emphasized that the Committee’s recommendations were mere recommendations and should not be qualified as anything else. It also cautioned against joint recommendations with other treaty bodies.
Mexico said that the dialogue with States Parties was useful to improve cooperation with States Parties. Mexico suggested a lighter reporting procedure in which only the replies to the list of issues would be considered as the report. That would also make follow-up easier.
Indonesia said, regarding the concern by the Committee that the treaty body’s recommendations might be undermined as the same recommendation would be publicly rejected under the Universal Periodic Review, that that would surely not be the case. The Committee’s recommendations would rather be reinforced by a recommendation under the Universal Periodic Review.
Denmark said that interactive dialogue was important for countries that had not ratified the Covenant to get to know the Committee and to consider ratification. Would the Committee consider such an interactive dialogue?
Syria recommended that meetings with State Parties be held every six months. More transparency was also needed with regard to why certain recommendations were made. Too much interaction between the Universal Periodic Review and the Committee would just lead to too much confusion. Those two bodies had different working methods, which should be respected, and also to avoid duplication.
Japan suggested the introduction of consideration of country reports in parallel chambers in order to reduce the Committee’s backlog. Also, the transparency of its working methods should be enhanced regarding the drafting of concluding observations. That would also increase the Committee’s credibility. To that end, the names of the Country Rapporteurs should be made public.
Sweden said that it would appreciate harmonization between treaty body procedures. Sweden was very active in the Universal Periodic Review process and appreciated the comments by this Committee. It was important that States did not use the Universal Periodic Review as an excuse not to fulfil the recommendations of the Committee. Sweden asked whether the Committee had budgetary constraints.
Canada said that it supported transparency and dialogue with States Parties. At the same time, the independence of the Committee should be safeguarded. The Universal Periodic Review could benefit from interventions by Members of the human rights treaty bodies. Canada would also appreciate the possibility to comment on concluding observations.
The Russian Federation said that it supported the activities of the Committee and actively cooperated with it. The Universal Periodic Review was an independent mechanism and should not duplicate, engage in rivalry with or compete with the Committee.
The United Kingdom asked, regarding reporting, if the Committee had given further thought to revised reporting which would lessen the reporting burden on States. The Committee against Torture was using a lighter reporting on a certain choice of issues instead of on the whole Convention. The Universal Periodic Review had already led to implementation or ratification of human rights treaties. Better engagement with civil society was important and a structured meeting was useful. However, there might be cases in which it was not advisable to make all information by non-governmental organizations provided to the Committee available to the public.
Nigeria said that reasons for delays in reporting had to be investigated which could also be the heavy burden of reporting. The Committee should seek a balance in the issues discussed and the States Parties. Harmonizing of the procedures of treaty bodies was absolutely necessary. It would enhance the concluding observations if States could comment on them. That would add to transparency of the Committee.
Ireland said that there was huge potential for complementarity between treaty bodies. Ireland encouraged treaty bodies to express their views how that was possible.
Ghana said that the figures on failure to report were very high. All should consider measures to improve those numbers. It would be useful to reflect the views of the Members States next to the conclusions by the Committee to give a full picture of the situation.
Tanzania said that Tanzania had only recently been examined. During the discussions, the Committee had often been unhappy with what was simply a fact in the country. The Committee should show more flexibility in that regard. Non-governmental organization material had been published far too late and had surprised the delegation. Tanzania suggested that one or two members of the Committee should visit a country before discussing the report.
Argentina said that all State Parties should make an effort to comply with the deadline. To that end, good coordination with other treaty bodies would be useful.
Chad said that the reporting guidelines should be made available to States Parties in due time. States under the Universal Periodic Review had not necessarily ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or its Optional Protocol. Therefore, those two mechanisms could not be confused.
Switzerland said that it was looking forward to the next General Comment on freedom of expression, which would be useful for the work of the Human Rights Council. It did not agree with other States that had suggested to add a State’s comments to the concluding observations as the Universal Periodic Review was a different body and was a dialogue between States whereas the Committee was an Expert body. Switzerland agreed with the Committee’s decision to keep the name of the Special Rapporteur confidential.
Botswana said that the issue of reporting obligations and the issue of complementarity with other mechanisms should be further explored. Botswana thought that the new follow-up procedure seemed to be very useful and asked for further clarification on the responses.
Romania appreciated the dialogue with States Parties and asked for further information on the Committee’s relation to the media.
Members of the Committee then responded to comments and questions by States parties.
YUJI IWASAWA, Chairman of the Human Rights Committee, said that after the Committee had issued concluding remarks the comments of the States Parties were not buried but were published on the website. Webcasting was not possible due to budgetary constraints. As to the revised reporting guidelines, the work had already started. The Committee shared the view that the Universal Periodic Review was useful for the work of the Committee and the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee. They were aware of the difficulties some State Parties faced concerning their reporting obligations. He also agreed that human rights treaty bodies were different from the Universal Periodic Review, but it was far more important to emphasize their complementarity.
MICHAEL O'FLAHERTY, Committee Member, said that the quality of concluding remarks had incrementally increased over the years and would continue to do so. However, States should not be surprised about the contents as all the remarks stemmed from the dialogue held with the State. Joint general comments across the treaty body system needed further reflection. He was of the opinion that Committee Members should not take part in the Universal Periodic Review in order to keep a clear distinction between the bodies. The problem of the onerous reporting burden on States was certainly not up to the Human Rights Committee to resolve, but lay in the system and had to be addressed in a joint effort.
NIGEL RODLEY, Committee Member, said that the Committee encouraged the development of country visits as follow-up tool. He clarified that the Committee saw a rejection of the recommendations by the Committee if the country was not implementing the recommendations.
RUTH WEDGWOOD, Committee Member, said that the Committee appreciated the State Parties’ concern about the Committee’s resources. That was especially important concerning translations. She supported the idea of webcasting or audio-registering the Committee meetings. She would also appreciate country visits with bar associations to spread the knowledge of the Covenant. Many developing countries were not very transparent in their procedures and such meetings would encourage that transparency.
ZONKE ZANELE MAJODINA, Committee Member, said that she supported a structured cooperation with non-governmental organizations. The relation should not be adversarial and in meetings before, during and after examination of a country report a step could be made toward a cordial relationship. Non-governmental organizations disseminated and also monitored the concluding remarks of the Committee.
KRISTER THELIN, Committee Member, said that the suggestion to limit reporting issues would be discussed in the Committee. Increased resources would also benefit those individuals that were waiting for an answer.
CHRISTINE CHANET, Committee Member, said that the Human Rights Council and the Committee were two very distinct bodies, as had been mentioned several times. The Experts did not represent States but only voiced their own opinions. The other often-mentioned constant was that of complementarity which should be enforced. It was also important to note that the priorities of the Committee might not be the same as for the Universal Periodic Review.
ABDELFATTAH AMOR, Committee Member, said that the reporting delays were a subjective fact and action needed to be taken. When there was a desire or a willingness to do something there was always a way to find a solution. State Parties should at least start the process for an initial report. The targeted report – which focused only on certain issues – might be retained as a practice. However, they were not the same issues for all States which could lead to problems.
IULIA ANTOANELLA MOTOC, Committee Member, said that linguistic diversity was very important. The six United Nations languages had to be maintained. Transparency was a key issue and non-governmental organizations should only provide information they wanted to provide.
FABIAN OMAR SALVIOLI, Committee Member, said regarding transparency that this was a fundamental issue. However, it would not help transparency to give the names of the Country Rapporteurs since all Committee members received the information and could comment on it.
___________
For use of the information media; not an official record
23 July 2009
This afternoon the Human Rights Committee met with States Parties, holding an interactive dialogue on the Committee’s working methods and possibilities for improving cooperation with States Parties.
Committee Members informed States Parties about the upcoming General Comment on freedom of expression; the status of submission of reports from State Parties, 90 of which were late; the working of the procedure under the Optional Protocol concerning individual cases; the follow-up procedure on country reports; Committee views and concerns regarding cooperation with the Universal Periodic Review process; and measures to enhance cooperation with States Parties.
In the ensuing discussion, countries raised issues such as the harmonization of working methods with other treaty bodies, which would lighten the burden of reporting for States. The complementarity of the work of the Human Rights Committee with the Universal Periodic Review was underlined by several countries. Opinions about the degree of collaboration with the Human Rights Council were divided among States: some speakers stressed the different nature of the bodies and others underlined the usefulness of joint efforts for the implementation of recommendations. Some speakers called for more transparency in the argumentation of the concluding remarks and asked for the publication of the comments by States, as was done for the Universal Periodic Review. The sharing of information provided by non-governmental organizations to the Committee would support countries’ efforts in the preparation of the report, some speakers thought.
Representatives of the following countries took part in the discussion: France, Azerbaijan, Algeria, Liechtenstein, Sri Lanka, United States, Mexico, Indonesia, Denmark, Syria, Japan, Sweden, Canada, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, Nigeria, Ghana, Tanzania, Argentina, Chad, Switzerland, Botswana and Romania.
The Committee will hold its next public meeting on Monday, 27 June at 3 p.m., when it will hear a briefing by a representative of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on human rights indicators and hold a dialogue with a representative of the Inter-Parliamentary Union on follow-up to concluding observations.
Statements
YUJI IWASAWA, Chairman of the Human Rights Committee, said that the Committee was constantly improving its methods in order to enhance its dialogue with State Parties. Nearly 100 new communications were registered each year. To date, 112 States Parties had ratified the Optional Protocol on Communications. Since 2006, two new General Comments had been adopted. The next General Comment would deal with the Freedom of Expression. A first draft would be read at the next session of the Committee, as well as a first draft of the new reporting guidelines.
ABDELFATTAH AMOR, Committee Member, presenting the status of submission of reports, said that 90 States were late in submitting their reports and some States had not yet submitted their initial reports which were due. The delays were anywhere from 3 months to 24 years, in the worst case. That situation was not a normal one. In order to encourage States, the rules of procedure provided for the possibility to consider the human rights situation within a State without the report. That had so far been applied to 11 States and the results were encouraging.
NIGEL RODLEY, Committee Member, presented the situation of follow-up under the guidance of the Special Rapporteur on follow-up on Concluding Observations. The aim was to continue the dialogue with the countries examined. The Committee appreciated receiving a follow-up on three or four issues that were at the centre of attention during the examination within 12 months. Sometimes those follow-up responses did not come in, and the Committee had now established a procedure to remind States Parties of their request. Where the information provided was not satisfactory, the Committee would respond to the country. The follow-up procedure stopped when the next periodic report was due.
RUTH WEDGWOOD, Committee Member, presented the cases dealt with under the Optional Protocol by the Committee. If a country had signed up to this Optional Protocol, any person of that country could bring their individual cases alleging violations of the Covenant before the Committee. After a first screening, cases were brought before the plenary where the plausibility and the merits were discussed. If a violation were found, the Committee tried to frame a remedy and sent that suggestion to the State Party. Ms. Wedgwood was surprised how many countries did not follow-up on the Committee’s recommendations. That was sometimes due to federalism or bureaucracy, but sometimes also due to countries’ doubts about the Committee’s interpretation of the Covenant. She encouraged States to trust the Committee’s judgment and follow its suggestions.
CHRISTINE CHANET, Committee Member, said that the Universal Periodic Review was very helpful as it served to call attention to the all human rights treaties, including the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Given the universal nature of the Universal Periodic Review, the Committee thought that it might help to look at ways to benefit more from it. The follow-up mechanism to the Universal Periodic Review was also very interesting. The mechanism in the Universal Periodic Review by which States could publicly reject recommendations would be problematic for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Another problem would be the confusion that could arise from the Universal Periodic Review and the work of treaty bodies.
IULIA ANTOANELLA MOTOC, Committee Member, said there had been great progress since the last meeting with States Parties three years ago. She suggested establishing a focal point for contact with States Parties. Sometime States Parties did not respond because there were legal issues, they did not have the means or did not know how to go about it. In order to respond to States Parties’ needs, it would be important to have a focal point within the Committee. Another recommendation was to establish better contact between States and non-governmental organizations in publishing the information provided by the non-governmental organizations on the Internet so that States could easily access it.
Interactive Dialogue with States Parties
France said that surely in this Committee as well there were translation issues. It was important to harmonize the Committee’s procedure with other treaty bodies, as that would be helpful for States to comply with the reporting obligations. As to the Universal Periodic Review, of course both mechanisms were complimentary. It would be helpful if the respective mechanisms, the Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Periodic Review, would highlight their most important recommendations.
Azerbaijan said that more respect should be paid by the Committee to the reporting obligations of very small permanent missions. Azerbaijan had to submit seven reports this year, including a report for the Universal Periodic Review, which was clearly too much for such a small permanent mission. It was absolutely vital that treaty bodies harmonized their working methods.
Algeria said that (i.e. too many reports) was the reason why so many countries had not submitted their reports. It was helpful to exchange views and a focal point in the Committee could be useful as well. When the Committee itemized the shortcomings in human rights protection in a certain country it was important to provide some explanation or justification for that judgment. It was also regretted that there was no possibility to publish a country’s answers to the Committee’s concluding observations together with the concluding observations, as was the case with the Universal Periodic Review.
Liechtenstein asked whether the Committee would now highlight the most important recommendations for each and every country. What kind of criteria did the Committee intend to apply to determine which recommendation was a priority? In the implementation, the time factor played a role and Liechtenstein asked how the highlighting of certain recommendation would affect the time frame for implementation.
Sri Lanka said that Sri Lanka’s late submission was due to revisions that had to be made to the report. Sri Lanka attached great importance to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and was looking forward to its next engagement with the Committee.
The United States that it was supporting the Human Rights Committee to increase its dialogue with States Parties that were not collaborating with the Committee. Better coordination between treaty bodies was needed so that the same country did not have to submit reports to several Committees at the same time. The United States also emphasized that the Committee’s recommendations were mere recommendations and should not be qualified as anything else. It also cautioned against joint recommendations with other treaty bodies.
Mexico said that the dialogue with States Parties was useful to improve cooperation with States Parties. Mexico suggested a lighter reporting procedure in which only the replies to the list of issues would be considered as the report. That would also make follow-up easier.
Indonesia said, regarding the concern by the Committee that the treaty body’s recommendations might be undermined as the same recommendation would be publicly rejected under the Universal Periodic Review, that that would surely not be the case. The Committee’s recommendations would rather be reinforced by a recommendation under the Universal Periodic Review.
Denmark said that interactive dialogue was important for countries that had not ratified the Covenant to get to know the Committee and to consider ratification. Would the Committee consider such an interactive dialogue?
Syria recommended that meetings with State Parties be held every six months. More transparency was also needed with regard to why certain recommendations were made. Too much interaction between the Universal Periodic Review and the Committee would just lead to too much confusion. Those two bodies had different working methods, which should be respected, and also to avoid duplication.
Japan suggested the introduction of consideration of country reports in parallel chambers in order to reduce the Committee’s backlog. Also, the transparency of its working methods should be enhanced regarding the drafting of concluding observations. That would also increase the Committee’s credibility. To that end, the names of the Country Rapporteurs should be made public.
Sweden said that it would appreciate harmonization between treaty body procedures. Sweden was very active in the Universal Periodic Review process and appreciated the comments by this Committee. It was important that States did not use the Universal Periodic Review as an excuse not to fulfil the recommendations of the Committee. Sweden asked whether the Committee had budgetary constraints.
Canada said that it supported transparency and dialogue with States Parties. At the same time, the independence of the Committee should be safeguarded. The Universal Periodic Review could benefit from interventions by Members of the human rights treaty bodies. Canada would also appreciate the possibility to comment on concluding observations.
The Russian Federation said that it supported the activities of the Committee and actively cooperated with it. The Universal Periodic Review was an independent mechanism and should not duplicate, engage in rivalry with or compete with the Committee.
The United Kingdom asked, regarding reporting, if the Committee had given further thought to revised reporting which would lessen the reporting burden on States. The Committee against Torture was using a lighter reporting on a certain choice of issues instead of on the whole Convention. The Universal Periodic Review had already led to implementation or ratification of human rights treaties. Better engagement with civil society was important and a structured meeting was useful. However, there might be cases in which it was not advisable to make all information by non-governmental organizations provided to the Committee available to the public.
Nigeria said that reasons for delays in reporting had to be investigated which could also be the heavy burden of reporting. The Committee should seek a balance in the issues discussed and the States Parties. Harmonizing of the procedures of treaty bodies was absolutely necessary. It would enhance the concluding observations if States could comment on them. That would add to transparency of the Committee.
Ireland said that there was huge potential for complementarity between treaty bodies. Ireland encouraged treaty bodies to express their views how that was possible.
Ghana said that the figures on failure to report were very high. All should consider measures to improve those numbers. It would be useful to reflect the views of the Members States next to the conclusions by the Committee to give a full picture of the situation.
Tanzania said that Tanzania had only recently been examined. During the discussions, the Committee had often been unhappy with what was simply a fact in the country. The Committee should show more flexibility in that regard. Non-governmental organization material had been published far too late and had surprised the delegation. Tanzania suggested that one or two members of the Committee should visit a country before discussing the report.
Argentina said that all State Parties should make an effort to comply with the deadline. To that end, good coordination with other treaty bodies would be useful.
Chad said that the reporting guidelines should be made available to States Parties in due time. States under the Universal Periodic Review had not necessarily ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or its Optional Protocol. Therefore, those two mechanisms could not be confused.
Switzerland said that it was looking forward to the next General Comment on freedom of expression, which would be useful for the work of the Human Rights Council. It did not agree with other States that had suggested to add a State’s comments to the concluding observations as the Universal Periodic Review was a different body and was a dialogue between States whereas the Committee was an Expert body. Switzerland agreed with the Committee’s decision to keep the name of the Special Rapporteur confidential.
Botswana said that the issue of reporting obligations and the issue of complementarity with other mechanisms should be further explored. Botswana thought that the new follow-up procedure seemed to be very useful and asked for further clarification on the responses.
Romania appreciated the dialogue with States Parties and asked for further information on the Committee’s relation to the media.
Members of the Committee then responded to comments and questions by States parties.
YUJI IWASAWA, Chairman of the Human Rights Committee, said that after the Committee had issued concluding remarks the comments of the States Parties were not buried but were published on the website. Webcasting was not possible due to budgetary constraints. As to the revised reporting guidelines, the work had already started. The Committee shared the view that the Universal Periodic Review was useful for the work of the Committee and the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee. They were aware of the difficulties some State Parties faced concerning their reporting obligations. He also agreed that human rights treaty bodies were different from the Universal Periodic Review, but it was far more important to emphasize their complementarity.
MICHAEL O'FLAHERTY, Committee Member, said that the quality of concluding remarks had incrementally increased over the years and would continue to do so. However, States should not be surprised about the contents as all the remarks stemmed from the dialogue held with the State. Joint general comments across the treaty body system needed further reflection. He was of the opinion that Committee Members should not take part in the Universal Periodic Review in order to keep a clear distinction between the bodies. The problem of the onerous reporting burden on States was certainly not up to the Human Rights Committee to resolve, but lay in the system and had to be addressed in a joint effort.
NIGEL RODLEY, Committee Member, said that the Committee encouraged the development of country visits as follow-up tool. He clarified that the Committee saw a rejection of the recommendations by the Committee if the country was not implementing the recommendations.
RUTH WEDGWOOD, Committee Member, said that the Committee appreciated the State Parties’ concern about the Committee’s resources. That was especially important concerning translations. She supported the idea of webcasting or audio-registering the Committee meetings. She would also appreciate country visits with bar associations to spread the knowledge of the Covenant. Many developing countries were not very transparent in their procedures and such meetings would encourage that transparency.
ZONKE ZANELE MAJODINA, Committee Member, said that she supported a structured cooperation with non-governmental organizations. The relation should not be adversarial and in meetings before, during and after examination of a country report a step could be made toward a cordial relationship. Non-governmental organizations disseminated and also monitored the concluding remarks of the Committee.
KRISTER THELIN, Committee Member, said that the suggestion to limit reporting issues would be discussed in the Committee. Increased resources would also benefit those individuals that were waiting for an answer.
CHRISTINE CHANET, Committee Member, said that the Human Rights Council and the Committee were two very distinct bodies, as had been mentioned several times. The Experts did not represent States but only voiced their own opinions. The other often-mentioned constant was that of complementarity which should be enforced. It was also important to note that the priorities of the Committee might not be the same as for the Universal Periodic Review.
ABDELFATTAH AMOR, Committee Member, said that the reporting delays were a subjective fact and action needed to be taken. When there was a desire or a willingness to do something there was always a way to find a solution. State Parties should at least start the process for an initial report. The targeted report – which focused only on certain issues – might be retained as a practice. However, they were not the same issues for all States which could lead to problems.
IULIA ANTOANELLA MOTOC, Committee Member, said that linguistic diversity was very important. The six United Nations languages had to be maintained. Transparency was a key issue and non-governmental organizations should only provide information they wanted to provide.
FABIAN OMAR SALVIOLI, Committee Member, said regarding transparency that this was a fundamental issue. However, it would not help transparency to give the names of the Country Rapporteurs since all Committee members received the information and could comment on it.
___________
For use of the information media; not an official record