Human Rights Committee opens ninety-ninth session

12 July 2010

Hears from Director of Human Rights Treaty Division of OHCHR; Adopts Agenda and Programme of Work

The Human Rights Committee this morning opened its ninety-ninth session, adopting its agenda and programme of work and hearing an address by Ibrahim Salama, Director of the Human Rights Treaty Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

Mr. Salama said that many stakeholders, including treaty body experts, had responded to the call by the High Commissioner last year to reflect and submit proposals on ways to streamline and strengthen the treaty body system. Since then, a number of initiatives had taken place or were planned. As they were aware, the Dublin statement on treaty body strengthening was issued in November 2009; a month ago, all regional networks of national human rights institutions were invited by the Advisory Council on Human Rights to Morocco to a meeting on strengthening the human rights treaty bodies system. Participants adopted the Marrakech statement that formulated some ideas in this regard. Other consultations were under preparation in response to the High Commissioner’s call to strengthen the treaty body system, including a follow-up event to the Dublin meeting which would be organized this autumn in Poland as well as a civil society consultation meeting. It was understood that all treaty body chairpersons would be invited to this follow-up event.

Mr. Salama then turned to the eleventh Inter-Committee Meeting that was held from 28 to 30 June and 1 to 2 July. He wanted to draw the Committee’s attention to several points of agreement reached by the members of the eleventh Inter-Committee Meeting. The Inter-Committee Meeting welcomed the initiative by the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women to prepare a joint general comment and recommended that other Committees explore the possibility of issuing joint general comments. Participants in the eleventh Inter-Committee Meeting and the seventeenth annual meeting of the Special Procedures mandate holders jointly recommended more systematic cross-referencing and reinforcement of Special Procedures and treaty bodies’ recommendations. Specifically, Special Procedures’ recommendations and invitations for country visits could be taken into account and referred to in the treaty bodies’ concluding observations. Similarly, reference to a follow-up to treaty bodies’ recommendations and decisions should be made by mandate holders in their reports and during country visits. In this respect, it was emphasized that recommendations should be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound to enable enhanced follow-up.

In follow-up questions and comments Committee Members raised questions about the legal ramifications of issuing joint general comments as well as maintaining the independence of Committees. It was also pointed out that Committees should think about streamlining their work with non-governmental organizations, and bringing these civil society groups into the process of drafting the list of issues early on in the process as these groups were working at the grass roots level and could be a great resource to the Committees.

During the meeting, the Committee also adopted its agenda and programme of work.

Introducing the report of the Working Group on Communications, Committee Expert Michael O’Flaherty said that 26 drafts had been considered. Of those accepted six were inadmissible, one was admissible and two would be postponed until the next Working Group. The Working Group recommended that 17 communications be considered on their merits.
When the Committee resumes its work in public at 3 p.m. this afternoon it will begin consideration of the third periodic report of Estonia (CCPR/C/EST/3).
Statement

IBRAHIM SALAMA, Director of the Human Rights Treaty Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in opening remarks, said that many stakeholders, including treaty body experts, had responded to the call by the High Commissioner last year to reflect and submit proposals on ways to streamline and strengthen the treaty body system. Since then, a number of initiatives had taken place or were planned. As they were aware, the Dublin Statement on treaty body strengthening was issued in November 2009; a month ago, all regional networks of national human rights institutions were invited by the Advisory Council on Human Rights to Morocco to a meeting on strengthening the human rights treaty bodies system. Participants adopted the Marrakech statement that formulated some ideas in this regard. Other consultations were under preparation in response to the High Commissioner’s call to strengthen the treaty body system, including a follow-up event to the Dublin meeting which would be organized this autumn in Poland as well as a civil society consultation meeting. It was understood that all treaty body chairpersons would be invited to this follow-up event.

Mr. Salama went on to say that in order to improve support for the network in current and future requirements, a consultant had been hired to map out treaty body related work flows and work processes within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The aim of this consultancy was to come up with recommendations to better integrate treaty body reporting and implementation of the overall mandate of Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The consultancy constituted an independent, external, empirical study on the requirements of the treaty body work, which would help them define the level of necessary human and financial resources in the most transparent, and hopefully convincing, manner to Member States. He was pleased to inform the Committee that the work of the consultant was well advanced.

Mr. Salama then turned to the eleventh Inter-Committee Meeting that was held from 28 to 30 June and 1 to 2 July. He wanted to draw the Committee’s attention to several points of agreement reached by the members of the eleventh Inter-Committee Meeting. The Inter-Committee Meeting welcomed the initiative by the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women to prepare a joint general comment and recommended that other Committees explore the possibility of issuing joint general comments.

Mr. Salama noted that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was aware of the on-going difficulties faced by treaty bodies to obtain timely translation of their documents, including replies to lists of issues sent by States parties. This was one of the serious and persisting problems experienced, not just by the treaty bodies, but also by other United Nations human rights mechanisms, and the situation had been deteriorating in recent years. He wanted to assure the Committee that moving toward a resolution of this issue was a priority for the Office. But the Office needed their leadership. Participants in the eleventh Inter-Committee Meeting and the seventeenth annual meeting of the Special Procedures mandate holders jointly recommended more systematic cross-referencing and reinforcement of Special Procedures and treaty bodies’ recommendations. Specifically, Special Procedures’ recommendations and invitations for country visits could be taken into account and referred to in treaty bodies’ concluding observations. Similarly, reference to a follow-up to treaty bodies’ recommendations and decisions should be made by mandate holders in their reports and during country visits. In this respect, it was emphasized that recommendations should be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound to enable enhanced follow-up.

From 1 to 2 July 2010, the twenty-second meeting of the Chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies was held in Brussels at the initiative of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Regional Office. This was the first annual meeting of Chairpersons organized outside Geneva. The main objective of this initiative was to bring treaty bodies closer to the implementation level, to non-governmental organizations and regional mechanisms and raise awareness in Europe about treaty body work in order to strengthen linkages, synergies and implementation between international and regional human rights mechanisms.

Turning to the current session of the Human Rights Committee, Mr. Salama noted that the Committee would examine four State party reports: Estonia, Israel, Colombia and Cameroon. Mr. Salama was pleased to see that the Committee would devote two meetings to issues regarding working methods; in particular the draft revised reporting guidelines as well as focused reports and the list of issues prior to reporting. Mr. Salama also noted that the Committee would devote several meetings to the important work on draft General Comment number 34 on Article 19, concerning freedom of opinion and expression.

Questions and Remarks By Committee Members

In terms of joint general comments, one Committee member said confusion surrounding this issue continued and that a distinction had to be drawn between general comments on a specific question and more general comments that were not tied to a specific provision peculiar to only one Convention. The Committee Member also raised the issue of dialogue with States as a way of improving the quality of the work of the Committee as well as the quality of the relationship with States. This was a very important question that required new human and financial resources. Another Committee Member said that they saw the usefulness of the joint general comments, as there were many overlapping areas of interesting. However, from an international law perspective Committees had to be very careful that the joint general comments be adapted to the specific needs of that Committee and the States parties subject to it. The Committee Chairperson, Yuji Iwasawa, emphasized that in the Inter-Committee Meeting it was said that joint general comments should be done when appropriate. Another Committee expert agreed and said that regarding cross-cutting issues joint general comments could be helpful, as no Committee would lose its identity or independence.

Another Committee member raised the issue that sometimes the Committee was seen as an ancillary arm of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and this was not the case. The Member suggested a more bottom up approach.

It was also pointed out that the Committee should think about streamlining its work with non-governmental organizations, and bring them into the process of drafting the list of issues early on in the process as these groups were working at the grass roots level and could be a great resource to the Committees.

The Committee Chairperson said that the list of issues prior to reporting was a big topic at the eleventh Inter-Committee Meeting and he was happy to report that many of the States Parties welcomed the new procedures.

In responding to some of the comments, Mr. Salama said that it was gratifying to see that Member States had the conviction that the treaty bodies remained the pillar of promoting and protecting human rights and there was a renewed commitment to the system.

Mr. Salama agreed that the number and quality of civil society groups that attended the Inter-Committee Meeting was impressive and they would continue to strive to integrate their work. On the topic of the place of treaty bodies, Mr. Salama said that it never occurred to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to think of treaty bodies as an annex. The Office valued the Committees’ independence and benefited from it and this was why the work of strengthening the treaty body system was taking some time because it was a bottom up approach.

Regarding the development of general comments, Mr. Salama noted that harmonization was not developing too far in this area, but thought it was good that harmonization not go too quickly because it would preserve the diversity of the system and the fact that it corresponded to different instruments. In the Office’s dealing with different delegations, there was an increasing level of anxiety about how different Committees handled different issues and it was hoped that a higher degree of harmonization between what was being done would help alleviate this anxiety. This was part of the price of the expansion of the system, but something that could be avoided.

A Committee Member said he felt it was inevitable that the treaty bodies look at areas of cross fertilization. The independence of each treaty body should be protected of course, but in common areas in which Committees coincided the path should be taken that best guaranteed the rights of States and their citizens. It was felt that these guidelines should guide the work in this area.

Report of Working Group on Communications

MICHAEL O’FLAHERTY, Chairperson for the Working Group on Communications, said that the Working Group met from 5 to 9 July 2010. Committee Members in attendance included Mr. Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati, Mr. Majoub El-Haiba, Ms. Iulia Antoanella Motoc, Mr. Yuji Iwasawa, Mr. Rafael Rivas Posada and Mr. Fabian Omar Salvioli. Mr. O’Flaherty was elected as Chairperson. The Working Group was unable to meet on Wednesday and Thursday, but it was able to finish all the communications put before it. The Working Group considered 26 drafts and brought them to following point: the Working Group recommended that six cases be considered inadmissible; that one case be considered admissible; that 17 communications be considered on the merits; and it was recommended that two cases be postponed until the next Working Group as extensive changes were required in the drafts.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record