Human Rights Committee discusses methods of work

Human Rights Committee

6 July 2015

The Human Rights Committee held a public meeting this morning in which it discussed its methods of work, focusing on periodicity under the simplified reporting procedure.

Committee Expert Yuji Iwasawa presented a document on this issue.  Mr. Iwasawa reminded that in July 2010, the Committee had adopted a paper on what it called the List of Issues Prior to Reporting procedure.  The State party’s written responses to the List of Issues were considered as its periodic report, and the system was applicable to those States parties which had opted for it.  Thus far, 30 States had accepted the new procedure.  Nonetheless, Mr. Iwasawa noted, States that had adopted the simplified reporting procedure were disadvantaged as opposed to States that continued to use the standard reporting procedure.  The time currently required under the standard reporting procedure between the adoption of the concluding observations and the consideration of the next report was equal to the periodicity given to the State (currently three to six years), plus 20 months.  Under the simplified reporting procedure, the time required stood at three to six years, plus 12 months. The difference between the two reporting procedures was thus eight months.  Mr. Iwasawa suggested adding one year for States parties reviewed under the simplified reporting procedure, with the view of treating all States equally fairly.  Two separate charts should be created, for States reviewed under the two procedures. 

In the ensuing discussion, Experts expressed support to the clearly targeted proposal by Mr. Iwasawa.  There were 168 States parties, and the current proposal could help the Committee avoid a backlog.  The proposal might also help States parties report on time.  It would be made explicit to States that by adopting the simplified reporting procedure they would be given more time.  States had not made any formal requests regarding the periodicity of their reporting to the Committee, one way or the other.  An Expert noted that it should not be assumed that the minimum periodicity stood at three rather than four years; flexibility should be left to States to report within three years if the situation so required.  The Secretariat noted that, under the regular procedures, States parties normally produced replies within a month or two of the request.  Another Expert said that the question was purely of allowing States parties more time to report, as long as was deemed necessary.  An Expert suggested that more time be given to the Committee Members to discuss the proposal among each other and that no decision be made at the current meeting.  Distinction ought to be made between procedures of examination and procedures of follow-up.   

Mr. Iwasawa, responding to the comments by other Committee Members, said that written responses became outdated if the Committee waited for too long.  Even States parties with commendable human rights records sometimes failed to submit their reports on time; perhaps those under the simplified reporting procedure felt disadvantaged by the lesser time given to them, even though no State party had explicitly raised the issue.  Delays could, admittedly, occur under either procedure.  One year should allow enough time for any State party to conduct interdepartmental consultations.  It would be good to have more than 30 States opt for the simplified reporting procedure - if they saw the merit of it, they would certainly do so.

The Chairperson expressed hope that the Committee would be able to make a decision on this issue in the course of the current session.  The issue of regulations also warranted a comprehensive review. 

The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. this afternoon to starts its consideration of the sixth periodic report of Spain (CCPR/C/ESP/6).

 __________

For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr