Human Rights Committee hears reports on follow-up to concluding observations and to views

27 July 2011

The Human Rights Committee this morning heard presentations of progress reports by Committee members on the status of follow-up to the Committee’s concluding observations and on follow-up to Views. Following the presentations on action taken by States parties to implement concluding observations and Committee Views (opinions on individual complaints), the Committee adopted the reports, as orally amended during today’s discussions.

Christine Chanet, Committee member and the Special Rapporteur on Follow-Up to Concluding Observations, presenting the progress report on that subject, began with general comments about the follow-up procedure, by saying that the procedure was very cumbersome because it was far less focused than the follow-up procedure on Views. It was not so much the number of recommendations, but their vague nature that made the follow-up procedure so difficult. In the future, if they wanted this procedure to be more widely disseminated and accepted the recommendations had to be very specific, for example passing a law. Also, sometimes States gave follow-up information that was more detailed than the reports they handed in or they did not implement the recommendations or reply to the recommendations. This was also true of non-governmental organizations. They also had addressed the issue of States that did not really answer questions or just gave the façade of answering the questions and the Committee needed to be stricter in this regard.

With regard to the Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), Ms. Chanet said that she had met with the representative and he assured her that they had no problem with the three recommendations made by the Committee and it was just a matter of administrative delay.

Turning to a country-by-country presentation, Ms. Chanet said that with regard to Botswana, the representative said that the Committee’s questions had been too vague and thus had been returned to the capital for further clarification and they should have a response by the end of August so they could review the situation in October. With regards to Nicaragua, she had asked for an appointment with them and they had scheduled an appointment, but no one from Nicaragua showed up.

Ms. Chanet then said she would like the opinion of Committee members regarding what should be done with several States, including Chile. Chile said it did not understand the Committee’s questions so the Committee had sent them a letter with clarifications, but Chile had not responded. She suggested they ask for a meeting with the Chilean representative in October. One Committee member said that the next time they communicated with Chile they should remind them that their next report was due in March 2012. Another Expert said that he feared when a State was asked to present its report in less than a year the State perhaps did not understand that it urgently needed to submit this report. Should monitoring be implemented and if so would States feel that this monitoring obviated the need for a report?

Ms. Chanet said that she would not go into detail about the situation with Libya as everyone was aware of what was happening in the country. The same could be said of Tunisia, which had also not replied to a follow-up letter sent in April 2011. Ms. Chanet asked Committee members if they thought an additional reminder should be sent to Tunisia. Committee members seemed to be in favour of sending another reminder to the State party.

With regards to Panama, four requests for meetings had been sent to the State and it had not replied to any of them so Ms. Chanet was of the opinion that the State party should be put into the non-cooperating category.

Turning to Ireland, Ms. Chanet said that if the State party did not respond by October they should send another reminder and the same could be said of the United Kingdom. On the question of Denmark, a reminder was sent in April 2011 and there had been no reply. Ms. Chanet suggested they request a meeting for October. Nothing was planned for Japan because the report was due in October. Spain needed to provide extra information and a letter should be sent thanking the country for its cooperation thus far, but they needed more information on detention, torture and the treatment of foreigners.

Sweden was in a similar position to Denmark, namely a reminder was sent out in April and they should seek to meet the Swedish representative since they had not had a sufficient reply and the next report was not due until 2014.

Rwanda was on the agenda in New York and in April a request was sent out asking for additional information. There had still not been a reply and therefore they needed to send out a reminder if nothing was received. They had received a follow-up report from Australia that had been sent for translation. Azerbaijan had responded to some points raised by the Committee, had given incomplete replies to other questions, and had not answered some questions at all.

There had been no cooperation from Chad so they should request a meeting with a representative. The Russian Federation had provided no information on the question of Russian forces in South Ossetia and they needed extra information on the murder of journalists.

They had received replies from Croatia a few days ago and this information would be available in October. Switzerland was causing problems. They had answered questions on asylum seekers; however on two other recommendations on anti-racism measures and police complaint measures the Committee said the replies were unacceptable. Switzerland said that it was not possible to establish a body to accept complaints against police in each canton and the Committee said this was unacceptable.

Ecuador had ignored reminders so they should request a meeting for October. New Zealand had not replied to their reminder so another reminder should be sent. The same was true for Uzbekistan. Argentina had submitted a veritable river of documentation in May 2011, including a lot of comments from non-governmental organizations. However, the vital information was missing in this documentation, including information on overcrowding in prisons and access to legal services for detainees.

Mexico sent a satisfactory reply on 21 March 2011, but they needed additional information on the decriminalization of defamation and violence against women.

The Committee then adopted all the proposed recommendations on follow-up.

Krister Thelin, Committee member and Rapporteur for Follow-Up to Views, then presented a progress report on the status of individual communications received alleging violations of the Covenant by States parties, along with recommendations for future action, with regard to situations involving Algeria, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cameroon, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Greece, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Serbia, Spain, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan and Zambia.

The Rapporteur said he would seek a meeting with the following six States in October: Algeria, Cameroon, Nepal, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. He would also seek a meeting with Trinidad and Tobago, but not in October.

The progress report on follow-up to Views was then adopted by the Committee.

The Committee will hold its next public meeting this afternoon at 3 p.m., when it will discuss its working methods.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record