Human Rights Committee opens one-hundredth second session

Human Rights Committee
11 July 2011

Adopts Agenda and Programme of Work, Meets with Non-Governmental Organizations

The Human Rights Committee this morning opened its one-hundredth second session, adopting its agenda and programme of work and hearing an address by Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Committee also held a meeting with non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions on improving cooperation with the Committee.
In opening remarks, the High Commissioner said they were all aware that in 2009 she had called on different stakeholders, including States and civil society organizations, to provide their views and suggestions on ways and means to strengthen the treaty body system. There were many messages coming out of the meetings that had been held thus far, which could be summarized as follows: civil society organizations were clearly calling for the strengthening of the system and they proposed many specific ways in which this could be pursued, with varying degrees of complexity. One key demand was that all treaty bodies align their engagement procedures instead of multiplying them in different forms and formats, reinforcing the same request by national human rights institutions made some months ago. The key message of States, on the other hand, who also lent moral support to strengthening treaty bodies, was clearly one of austerity and self-discipline, particularly in respect to the so-called “non-mandated activities” undertaken by nearly all treaty bodies, such as follow-up procedures and the development of general comments.

In terms of Secretariat support, Ms. Pillay regretted to inform the Committee that the news from documentation services remained unaltered. At the Sion meeting they learned for the first time the full resource requirements for the preparation of the documentation needed by the treaty bodies. It reinforced with greater precision what they already knew: that the level of resources never increased to match the growing number of treaty bodies and procedures adopted by them including follow-up procedures; that capacity to service further meetings was stretched to the maximum; and that a more dramatic reduction than was anticipated was now foreseen in the budget of the United Nations Secretariat that would further negatively impact its ability to translate documents on time. She was also aware that financial constraints had also had a negative impact on the organization of several recent treaty body sessions. It would appear that the fundamental issue was that the General Assembly had not approved sufficient resources to cover the established and scheduled meetings of treaty bodies. She shared their frustration and this problem reaffirmed that they were facing a serious issue of resources which they all needed to flag with their counterparts, especially with States, continuously. An effective treaty body system needed to be resourced properly.

In follow-up questions and comments a Committee member said that they sympathized with the resource restrictions, but according to article 36 of their Covenant it was the Secretary-General’s responsibility to provide the necessary resources to the Committee, not the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. How could they combine forces to ensure that they received the appropriate resources so that they were able to do their work? If they did not have the proper level of resources they risked the collapse of the entire treaty body system.
The Committee then held a discussion with non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions on ways to improve cooperation between it and civil society organizations, including earlier involvement of civil society in the country review process, the use of technology to further facilitate the involvement of civil society organizations and the possibility of Committees meeting outside of New York and Geneva to further increase interaction with non-governmental organizations.
During the meeting, the Committee also adopted its agenda and programme of work.
Regarding the report of the Working Group on Communications, Nigel Rodley, the Chairperson for the Working Group on Communications, said the Working Group had met last week with nine members present. They examined 20 communications and they found 4 cases inadmissible, decided 15 cases should be considered on their merits and decided that 1 case should be postponed until the next session for further clarification on the exhaustion of remedies available in the State party.
When the Committee resumes its work in public at 3 p.m. this afternoon it will begin consideration of the initial report of Ethiopia (CCPR/C/ETH/1). The press release on Ethiopia will be released at the end of the day on Tuesday, 12 July after the Committee ends its review of the report, which will be held over three meetings.
Statements

NAVI PILLAY, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in opening remarks welcomed the new members to the Committee and said she had no doubt their expertise would greatly contribute to the work of the Committee. Ms. Pillay said a number of new developments had taken place since the last meeting of the Committee. During its seventeenth session, the Human Rights Council had adopted the text of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which had been drafted by the Open-ended Working Group established to elaborate a communications procedure. The text of this new treaty would be brought to the General Assembly for approval during its sixty-sixth session this autumn. Ms. Pillay said she was of the view that the Optional Protocol was a positive development in protecting and advancing the rights of the child.

During the same session the Human Rights Council adopted, for the first time, a resolution expressing grave concern about acts of violence and discrimination against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. The resolution called on her Office to commission a global study to document discrimination and violence on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. A panel discussion informed by this study would take place at the nineteenth session of the Human Rights Council in 2012. On 31 May 2011, at the United Nations in New York, during the first meeting of the States parties to the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the 10 inaugural members of the newly established Committee on Enforced Disappearances were elected. The establishment of the first Committee on Enforced Disappearances was a significant development in the fight against enforced disappearances and followed the coming into force of the Convention on 23 December 2010 after the twentith State ratified the Convention.

Ms. Pillay said they were all aware that in 2009 she had called on different stakeholders, including States and civil society organizations, to provide their views and suggestions on ways and means to strengthen the treaty body system. The consultation stage of this process, which started in Dublin in November 2009, continued in Marrakech in June 2010, in Poznan in September 2010, Seoul in April, Sion in May with State representatives, and Pretoria in June 2011. The Pretoria statement should be finalized by the end of this month. There were many messages coming out of these meetings which could be summarized as follows: civil society organizations were clearly calling for the strengthening of the system and they proposed many specific ways in which this could be pursued, with varying degrees of complexity. One key demand was that all treaty bodies align their engagement procedures instead of multiplying them in different forms and formats, reinforcing the same request by national human rights institutions made some months ago. The key message of States, on the other hand, who also lent moral support to strengthening treaty bodies, was clearly one of austerity and self-discipline, particularly in respect of the so-called “non-mandated activities” undertaken by nearly all treaty bodies, such as follow-up procedures and the development of general comments.

Ms. Pillay then turned to the Inter-Committee Meeting which took place from 27 to 29 June. The meeting focused on enhancing the effectiveness of the treaty bodies and looked at the harmonization of working methods. This meeting was followed on 30 June and 1 July by the twenty-third Meeting of Chairpersons, which addressed harmonization of working methods, eligibility and independence of members and enhancing the meeting of chairpersons. In her opening address to the body in June, Ms. Pillay had stated that treaty body experts were at the heart of the strengthening of the treaty body system, that they were truly the ones that could bring about change and that they would succeed if they were determined and united around a shared vision. Only they could bring about changes with a shared vision that was progressively emerging. Resources were clearly the responsibility of States and she was certain that despite the financial and economic crises, States could not avoid their responsibilities. In her view it was unacceptable that the treaty body system functioned with a 30 per cent reporting compliance rate, that treaty bodies were the victim of their own success and that a lack of resources weakened the States parties’ accountability under international human rights law.

The High Commissioner said that when Pakistan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 22 June 2010, it had made 9 reservations to the Covenant, including a reservation on article 40 related to States parties obligations to submit reports on the implementation of the rights protected under the Covenant. Ms. Pillay was pleased to report that Prime Minister of Pakistan had recently indicated that Pakistan would withdraw most of the reservations to the Covenant. It was her understanding that a number of States parties to the Covenant had already objected to these reservations and she looked forward to receiving confirmation in due course that they had in fact been withdrawn.

In terms of Secretariat support, Ms. Pillay regretted to inform the Committee that the news from documentation services remained unaltered. At the Sion meeting they learned for the first time the full resource requirements for the preparation of the documentation needed by the treaty bodies. It reinforced with greater precision what they already knew: that the level of resources never increased to match the growing number of treaty bodies and procedures adopted by them including follow-up procedures; that capacity to service further meetings was stretched to the maximum; and that a more dramatic reduction than was anticipated was now foreseen in the budget of the United Nations Secretariat that would further negatively impact its ability to translate documents on time. She was also aware that financial constraints had also had a negative impact on the organization of several recent treaty body sessions. It would appear that the fundamental issue was that the General Assembly had not approved sufficient resources to cover the established and scheduled meetings of treaty bodies. She shared their frustration and this problem reaffirmed that they were facing a serious issue of resources which they all needed to flag with their counterparts, especially with States, continuously. An effective treaty body system needed to be resourced properly.

Ms. Pillay then called on the Committee to please help protect the environment by using as little paper as possible. They could also see the thousands of pages which had been printed for their folders, most of which would be thrown away at the end of the session. The United Nations as a whole was gradually reducing the production and distribution of hard copy documents and some Committees had already conducted paperless sessions. She understood that since the last session a password protected extranet had been set up for Committee Members for the distribution of documents prior to the session and that it would remain updated with new documents. She was hopeful that greater use and reliance on this extranet before and during sessions would rationalize the documentation required and could ultimately contribute to a substantial reduction in the quantity of pages that needed to be printed.

Turning to the work at hand, Ms. Pillay said that this session promised to be an interesting one with the consideration of three States parties reports, two of which were initial reports. The Committee would also consider the situation in one country in the absence of a report. Country Task Forces would adopt lists of issues on the initial report of the Maldives and on the periodic reports of Turkmenistan and Iceland. During this session they would also consider 20 individual communications, as well as the progress reports submitted by the Special Rapporteur on Follow-up to concluding observations, the progress report on the follow-up to views and they would adopt their annual report. They would also devote several meetings to the second reading of their significant and timely draft of General Comment no.34 on Article 19 of the Covenant, dealing with freedom of expression and information.

In conclusion, the High Commissioner wished them a very successful and productive session.

Questions and Remarks by Committee Members

A Committee member said that they sympathized with the resource restrictions, but according to article 36 of their Covenant it was the Secretary-General’s responsibility to provide the necessary resources to the Committee, not the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. How could they combine forces to ensure that they received the appropriate resources to ensure they were able to do their work? If they did not they risked the collapse of the entire treaty body system.

The High Commissioner said this was an interesting observation and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights did take responsibility for the provision of resources and they would be doing a comprehensive report for debate at the General Assembly.

Report of the Working Group on Communications

NIGEL RODLEY, the Chairperson for the Working Group on Communications, said the Working Group had met last week with nine members present. They examined 20 communications and they found 4 cases inadmissible, decided 15 cases should be considered on their merits and decided that 1 case should be postponed until the next session for further clarification on the exhaustion of remedies available in the State party.

Discussion with non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions

VLADLEN STEFANOV, Chief of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ National Institutions and Regional Mechanisms Section, said that one of the strategic objectives of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was to strengthen national human rights protection systems through capacity support for national human rights institutions and assisting governments in establishing new national human rights institutions in line with the Paris Principles. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights provided secretariat support to the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, composed of more than 100 national human rights institutions, 67 of them currently with “A” status. One of the most important responsibilities of the International Coordination Committee was to assess whether national human rights institutions were in compliance with the Paris Principles and to accredit national human rights institutions with a specific status.

ROSSLYN NOONAN, Chairwoman of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, said the International Coordinating Committee valued the work of the treaty bodies because of their direct contribution at the country level. They felt they had a role to play in strengthening treaty body recommendations at the country level so they should develop relationships that were string and mutually reinforcing at the national level. The International Coordinating Committee could strengthen the treaty body monitoring process and help with implementation of their recommendations at the State level. Some of the things that could be helpful in this regard were the appointment of a national human rights institutions focal point to facilitate interaction with national human rights institutions and the treaty bodies. Meetings held between the national human rights institutions and the Committee should be scheduled immediately prior to a country’s presentation of a periodic report. Otherwise it could be very impractical and expensive for them to wait around to speak to the Committee. It would also be great if national human rights institutions could make a presentation during the public portions of the review of States. This was the case with the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and States parties seemed to be accepting of it. They had been looking at practical ways to strengthen engagement with various human rights mechanisms and the Human Rights Council had agreed to both video conferences and video statements and they would like to see the treaty bodies begin to use those technologies to enhance accessibility. They would also like to see meetings outside of New York and Geneva such as in regional hubs like Bangkok for the Asia Pacific region.

LIS DHUNDALE, of the Danish Institute for Human Rights, said that as a national human rights institution they had not yet prepared any parallel reports for this Committee, but they would submit documentation for future reports and they had already done so for other treaty body Committees. They had engaged in comprehensive cooperation with local human rights organizations and as a result they had offered resources to reports submitted to other treaty bodies. In terms of the Universal Periodic Review process, their institute had been very involved with the government and civil society and they had submitted their own report and it was widely accepted that they should have a very active role in the reporting process. This was a breakthrough in terms of their cooperation with the government and the result with civil society was positive as well. They needed help to build up capacity and coordinate civil society and to enter into dialogue with the government. They expected this cooperation to continue with the implementation process even after the Universal Periodic Review report was over. The Universal Periodic Review process provided direct access and was explicitly laid out in the guidelines for the Universal Periodic Review and this was perhaps something the Committee could think about in terms of requiring participation by civil society in the reporting guidelines for countries.

ABRAHAM LIYEW of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission said that it was important that governments met their reporting guidelines. The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission had started a project to help the government submit all overdue reports to the treaty bodies, and they had managed to submit about 20 overdue reports. The Commission had also provided technical assistance to non-governmental organizations to submit parallel reports. The Commission also had a follow-up procedure in which they studied the Universal Periodic Review documents, translated the documents into local languages so that it could be available to all stakeholders, and they then held a follow-up meeting with all stakeholders to discuss the recommendations and how best to implement them. They then monitored this implementation by involving all relevant institutions on what they could do in regard to meeting these recommendations. The difficulty in doing this was that sometimes the recommendations were concrete and could be monitored, while others were more amorphous and harder to measure. In that regard, they were developing a comprehensive human rights status report which would serve as the baseline for all treaty body organizations and this baseline could be used to monitor and measure the implementation of all recommendations. They had also implemented a national human rights action plan. The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission would appreciate more engagement with the national human rights institutions during the interim reporting periods.

In the ensuing discussion with Committee members, a Committee Expert said they should focus on methodologies and she asked to what extent the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission was involved in the writing of the current report from Ethiopia. Were there issues they should focus on that were not included in the report?

Another Committee member said the system for the protection and promotion of human rights was a tool, not an end in itself. There was no doubt that national human rights institutions played a very important role in this respect as a link between the national and international systems for the protection and promotion of human rights. The time had come for the Committees to elaborate statements on the role of national human rights institutions.

Another Committee member said that they all knew that a question of resources hampered their activities and so this placed limits on such things as moving the meetings outside of Geneva and New York and conducting fact finding missions and follow-up meetings with governments. However, they intended to keep the pressure up and they saw they had support from national human rights institutions. The baseline issue the representative from Ethiopia talked about was indeed a problem because if they had this baseline information it would be easier for the treaty bodies to better prioritize issues and increase their scrutiny and focus on certain areas.

The following speaker from the Committee said that they should avoid developing a hierarchy of sources such that the national human rights institutions were considered at a higher level than civil society organizations. They were different entities and equally important so they should not value one over the other. United Nations accreditation pursuant to the Paris Principles was very important, but they had to reserve the right to engage with national institutions that were not Paris compliant if and when relevant. Also, there was a large number of national human rights institutions that chose not to engage with them so they could put even more effort into making contact with the Committee when countries were under review.

Another speaker said that it was important to review all States, even those who had an overall good human rights reputation so he cautioned that they had to continue to apply the same standards to all States and not assume that some should get more scrutiny than others. Human rights were everyone’s concern and they should not classify States based on arbitrary criteria. The best of States had done great violence against humanity, including colonialism.

In response to some of the questions raised, ABRAHAM LIYEW of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, said that the Commission wanted to interface between the national and international mechanisms for human rights protection. In doing so the Commission had kept its relationship with the government intact and it would continue to do so. The problem with its engagement with the treaty bodies was related to the fact that their institution was not accredited so this limited its interaction with the Committees. Therefore he applauded the idea expressed that Committees should interact with both accredited and non-accredited national human rights institutions.

ROSSLYN NOONAN, Chairwoman of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, said that what they had heard illustrated the practical support and the important role the national human rights institutions provided in raising the profile of treaty body engagement and in raising the profile of civil society engagement and involvement. The International Coordinating Committee supported more engagement from civil society, not the reduction of its involvement. If treaty bodies could harmonize their work it made their engagement more effective and while they understood there were resource limitations she could not believe that there were not cheaper places to meet than New York.

LIDIYA GRIGOREVA, of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that respect for the human rights system was underpinned by the treaty body system. Many of the human rights mechanisms they had today were thanks to the work of civil society and they owed a lot to their tireless work and efforts at the grassroots level. Their strategy for working with civil society organizations depended on capacity building, protecting the space for civil society and increased participation of civil society. They had developed a civil society handbook in 9 languages, including all 6 United Nations languages as well as a version for people with visual impairments. They had also increased outreach online and via email digests with updates and guidance notes. The feedback from non-governmental organizations had been very positive. The section also held regular briefings for non-governmental organizations and worked to protect the increasingly small space in which civil society actors could operate. The section was relatively recent and small, but they were always open to ideas and suggestions on how to improve their work.

PATRICK MUTZENBERG from the Centre for Civil and Political Rights, said that he was presenting a working document that had been formulated in cooperation with Amnesty International and had been co-signed by 23 other non-governmental organizations. It was important that non-governmental organizations knew ahead of time which countries would be reviewed so that they had time to prepare interventions. It was also important to know the modalities for participation as well as deadlines for the submission of materials. An overall time table would be a great help as well so they could make long term plans in terms of lists of issues, reports and follow-up procedures that should be coordinated between all treaty bodies so they had a comprehensive view of when countries would be reviewed by all treaty bodies. The non-governmental organizations briefings that happened at lunch time were not necessarily ideal because they happened during lunch and there were problems with interpretation so he recommended that they have time set aside for formal meetings in the context of the session and other Committees had accepted this. The introduction of webcasting the Committee session was a positive development that allowed non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders to follow the proceedings live online and to look at archives of meetings.

JOHANNES HEILER of Amnesty International, continued the presentation of the working document by saying that they believed that it was important to consider how to deal with non-reporting States and they welcomed the fact that the Committee was starting to consider States in the absence of a report. However, the fact that reports on non-reporting States were drafted in private meetings was a disincentive for non-governmental organizations to participate and for countries to provide their reports in a timely manner. These meetings should be made public. He also reminded the Committee of the importance of concrete, time bound concluding observations and it would be useful if the Committee published concluding observations on non-reporting States that were published right after the consideration of the country situation, just as they were for other States. On implementation and follow-up, it was important that concluding observations be widely disseminated and translated and more emphasis could be placed on translation in local languages and dissemination in practice. For example, the Committee could ask the States to send in the translations of the concluding observations to the Committee so they could be posted on the Committee’s website. This would encourage that the concluding observations were disseminated in practice. It was also very important to have non-governmental organizations engage in the follow-up procedure. They welcomed the fact that increased documentation was available online such as non-governmental organization submissions and letters to governments, but it would be useful to be informed of deadlines and other information. A dedicated webpage for non-governmental organizations would be very helpful in this regard. How else could non-governmental organizations contribute to the consideration of State reports? Perhaps they could be given the opportunity to present oral briefings prior to the presentation of the periodic report. Country visits would also be useful in ensuring follow-up and engaging non-governmental organizations in this process would also be helpful as well as the Committee meeting outside of Geneva and New York. The role of non-governmental organizations should also be strengthened in the communications process. The issue of reservations was also something non-governmental organizations had worked on and they could be more involved in this process as well.

BELL HILAIRE of CRED, spoke briefly to say his organization worked in the standard setting process and within that context they had a draft process that had drawn up a code of conduct on freedom of expression and association, much of which was guided by the principles in the Covenant. They had published a book of research on this topic and there would be an international symposium on the harmonization of laws and policies relating to freedom of expression and association.

In the ensuing discussion a Committee Expert agreed that the review of non-reporting States should be conducted in public meetings and additional help should be provided to States that had problems with submitting their reports in a timely manner. Another Committee member applauded the joint initiative from the Centre for Civil and Political Rights and Amnesty International and all the non-governmental organizations who had signed on to the working paper. This showed why the involvement of civil society was so important. Some of their recommendations should be directed toward the Secretariat, particularly those dealing with resources. In terms of concluding observations, they were not project papers so they could not be presented in the same way, and the Committee would of course like to receive project reports from non-governmental organizations at the same time they received State party reports.

Other Committee members said that some countries were completely overwhelmed by the follow-up process and thus they very much welcomed more engagement with local non-governmental organizations in this regard. In terms of video-conferencing, a Committee member said they supported this, but it had been their experience that due to the very poor internet connections in some areas this technology did not always work so perhaps the field offices of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights could be enlisted to help address this problem.
__________

For use of the information media; not an official record