Statement byMs. Navanethem PillayUnited Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Dublin Statement on the process of strengthening theUnited Nations Human Rights Treaty Body System

Dear Colleagues,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure to join you at this very important meeting.   Indeed, I look forward to drawing inspiration from ideas and proposals presented during this workshop. 

Since taking office as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,  I held regular meetings with the nine human rights treaty bodies. Interacting with members of these bodies has been an enlightening experience for me.   I have been very impressed by both the high quality of the work of treaty bodies and the heavy workload they face.  

Over the last two decades, international human rights law has progressed at an extraordinary pace.  New treaties have been adopted. The functions of treaty bodies have expanded, especially with regard to monitoring of States parties’ implementation.  Individual complaints procedures and the follow-up mechanisms established by a number of committees have also contributed to treaty bodies’ workload. And the future promises to be even busier.

In this regard, let me note that we are now only four ratifications away from the creation of the 10th treaty body under the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Last September, the Optional Protocol of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has been opened to signature in New York, and thirty States have already signed this new instrument.  And in December 2009, an Intergovernmental Working Group will meet to discuss the establishment of an Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child that would deal with individual complaints.

Today, forty years after the establishment of the first human rights treaty body, namely the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, treaty bodies have much broader mandates and higher profiles that correspond to a steep increase in the number, variety, and scope of their tasks.

Indeed, the constant growth of the treaty body system and the difficulty faced by all to adjust to it presents many challenges. I have, of course, taken note of the many achievements regarding the harmonization of the working methods of treaty bodies. The Inter-Committee Meetings have been of pivotal importance in this regard. Despite these significant successes and the extremely hard work of treaty bodies’ experts, in my view the system is facing at least two major challenges.  The first is related to resources, while the second pertains to coherence.

Regarding resources – and here I refer to human, technical, intellectual and financial resources - the treaty bodies’ requirements are getting ever more demanding. States are requested to report periodically in a detailed manner to a growing number of mechanisms both at the international and, increasingly, at the regional level, especially in Africa, the Americas and Europe.   Moreover, the number of States that have ratified human rights conventions and that produce more regular reports is also growing.   Not surprisingly, the combination of all these factors creates backlogs and puts a strain on the ability of the system to cope within existing resources.

To reduce the impressive backlog of States’ reports, human rights treaty bodies have significantly extended their working schedules.  During the next biennium (2010-2011), twenty additional weeks of work will be added to the already heavy treaty body calendar. However, such drastic and costly measures can not solve deeply rooted structural problems. For example, during 2006 the Committee on the Rights of the Child met in two Chambers, thereby doubling its capacity to review States’ reports. This was aimed at eliminating its backlog of reports, and it succeeded for a short period of time. Three years later, the CRC Committee is experiencing a renewed massive backlog of more than 100 States Parties’ reports pending consideration. It will again meet in two Chambers as of next year, but past experience has shown that such an option is only a short-term fix. As you are also aware, we are facing serious difficulties ensuring timely availability of documentation and translations of the input to and output from the different treaty bodies.  We are trying to address this problem with our colleagues at the United Nations Conference Services. Competing translation demands, such as those stemming from for the Universal Periodic Review process, will continue to bear a negative impact on the work of the treaty bodies, however.

Discrepancies in working methods compound the problem of resources.  In fact, the impressive growth of the treaty body system – although very positive in absolute terms – has also adversely affected the coherence of the system and its ability to coordinate work.  Various initiatives aimed at addressing these problems have had the unintended and perverse effect of creating additional and cumbersome layers.  As a result, the system often seems paralyzed.

The treaty body end product, that is its sets of recommendations, at times can also appear unmanageable for States and other stakeholders. For example, we have recently reviewed a number of States that report regularly under several treaties.   Treaty bodies request each of these State Parties to implement from 100 to 350 recommendations in the relatively short span of four to five years.  Most States would regard such request as unrealistic, since they also are required to follow up with recommendations of the Special Procedures and the Universal Periodic Review. Predictably, the result is an overlap or even duplication of requests.  Worse, at times recommendations from different human rights mechanisms contradict one another. This conundrum may weaken the very impact of treaty bodies at the country level. States may in fact be tempted to implement recommendations selectively and not in those areas that treaty bodies deem to be of utmost priority. The Universal Periodic Review, in particular, needs to be approached in a manner that enhances complementary work, and avoids duplication and competition with treaty bodies’ desiderata. 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I propose that once a specific issue has been identified as central to the improvement of the human rights situation in a given country, this issue should then be taken up by all human rights mechanisms.  Such coordination will help to harmonize working methods and—crucially—enhance the capacity of a State to concentrate on adequate responses.    We clearly need a focused and synergic approach to recommendations addressed to States Parties by the treaty bodies.  We need to set priorities and optimize collaboration among human rights mechanisms in order to bolster the impact of the human rights protection system as a whole.

I am a strong advocate of the treaty body system, and I spare no effort to assist it as it discharges its crucial functions. Speaking before the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, I called on all concerned parties to speedily develop proposals which could enable the system to be more rational, coherent, coordinated and effective.

I believe that treaty body experts are optimally placed to initiate such reflection and achieve the requisite balance between specificity of tasks and coherence of outcome.  Experts such as those gathered here today must lead the discussion and involve civil society and national human rights institutions in this important endeavor. The role of States Parties and their views should also be solicited regarding specific proposals that undoubtedly will emerge here in Dublin and in the future.   We also need to further the views other stakeholders such as civil society and national human rights institutions. The role of States Parties and their views shall also be solicited once specific proposals are formulated through the different events of which Dublin is a welcome and timely starting point.

In concluding, let me reiterate that I welcome your initiative and congratulate the organizers of this event. The role of OHCHR is to observe, analyze, and facilitate the process of strengthening the treaty body system.  We stand ready to assist you in your task.          

Thank you very much.